Has "Equity" Been Redefined By The Liberal Left, Before Our Eyes?

In every generation words evolve to take on a slightly different meaning and purpose. From biblical historical linguistic studies one can readily see this sort of evolution in word usage development. Thus the plight of the biblical expositor is to not only make sure of the "sitz-im-Leben" or the context and the historical setting, but also to shore up the correct meaning of words in the particular generation discussed and clarify the usage of terms associated with that setting. Failure to do so could result in historical synchronism, in which meanings of words specific to one generation, are either inadvertently or deliberately smuggled into another generation to create a completely different story than was originally intended.

There are words that we currently use in society that have experienced this same sort of "evolution". One such word is "equity".

What Is "EQUITY" And What Does It Mean?

As we will see below, one of the definitions of equity, is simply fairness in treatment. For example: If there is a job to be done requiring a hammer, and hammers are being distributed, one should be distributed to all those doing the job. To provide hammers to only them who appear to need a hammer is not equitable. Distributing hammers to only those who the supervisors want on site is also not equitable. This is where the train seems to come off the rails as I will explain.

Liberal Left Redefinition

For quite some time the term "equity" has seemingly been a theme song of the liberal political and social left. The word, as it is used today in political and social settings, is undergirded by theories of racial disparity and the inescapable boogeyman of "systemic racism" and in particular "white supremacy". When the liberal elite use the term "equity" in modern times, they are all but saying that America is unfair because of racism and her racist history. It is this history that has cemented outcomes in everything that is based on racism (white supremacy in particular) and the only way to be fair, is to assure the same outcomes in everything to everyone because racism has placed insurmountable obstacles, even if invisible, in front of whole groups of individuals therefore making every effort inequitable.

PROOF

I haven't seen or read too many Black people, political, religious or not, who undertake the discussion of this issue publicly and outside of politically liberal circles. But it seems that many Black leaders, especially political leaders, have taken on a determination to redefine the word and term "equity" for popularity, social acceptance and political gain.

Read more!

And You Think Lin Wood Is Crazy? Not So Fast, You Need To Listen...

There is truly nothing hidden but what shall be revealed.
(Mt. 10:26, Mk. 4:22, Lk. 8:17)

Read more!

MAGA: TI, "When Was America Great"?

The political climate of America is so sick right now, I hardly know where to begin. We have political candidates asserting that the Constitution of the United States needs to be done away with...We have whole news organizations (CNN) dedicating all of their time to liberal left political ideology and propaganda, we have leaders promising monthly check for all Americans and then calling themselves "mathematicians" and, on top of all that, we have a President who announces America's political and social and even military positions by Twitter of all things...

WHAT A MESS!!!!

Then, we have REVOLT! An event supposedly organized by Blacks, funded by Whites, (AT&T, probably doesn't have more Black stockholders than White ones for sure)  This was a forum seemingly heard all around the world featuring an assortment of Black liberals and conservatives. Some more popular than others to make public statements about the divide in the Black community over White Supremacy, American nationalism, and social justice and equality. 

In an exchange that seemingly got all the juices flowing renowned rap start TI also know as TIP on some occasions (whenever that alter ego kicks in to deal with certain things) asked Candice Owens, who has been accused of being a "Trump supporter" like many of us who have come off the democrat plantation to think for ourselves, "When was America Great?" as if to ask since President Trump is saying "Make America Great Again", what period of time would he be referring to?

Now, this is tricky because most people look for an era or a period of time in which America was "Great" for everybody within America. However, no such fiction exists. I would also say, if it doesn't exist within America, it certainly doesn't exist in any other country or nation on this earth, because all nations are filled with troubling past and history. So the utopia DOES NOT exist. However, TI in his zeal to flesh out sentiment against Trump was adamant to know how is America going to be MAGA and when was it ever MAGA to begin with which I believe is liberalism run amuck. 

Though Candace was a little taken back by the response of the audience and the treatment she received, immediately I had an answer for TI without question that I wish I could have said it right there on the stage. What amazes me is the very fact that Black folk could gather under a White owned and controlled corporate banner, AT&T, receive a stage to boost personal popularity and success, and deride White folk for being racist and White Supremacists, was clear fodder simply waiting to be devoured...but more than that, every one of those fine Black people on stage had come through a process in life where their very material success was directly connected to not only their personal efforts, but the efforts of White people from all parts of the country and even the world. I'll speak more on this as this is what I said:

"Now in this so called "REVOLT SUMMIT" sponsored by ATT through PDiddy (ATT need to save Direct TV instead of doing summits) TI asked, "during what period was America great?" As if this was some great startling moment...Candace Owens drove a message, but what she should have said was this...

"America was great when your Black behind got that first $500,000 check and took it to the bank and when you bought your first Bentley or first multi-million dollar home! America was great when you look at your bank account and set all your TI bills to autopay and don't have to miss a thang!!!! America was/is great when YOUR material success was delivered to you not just by Blacks, because truth is we don't pay a lot for music, but by the WHITE folk that promote you, and give you a chance to be this rich and successful mogul that you "said" that you are on this stage.

For you to question when America was/is Great and how it is great, is to question yourself, everything you do, and everything you have become or think you are because no single community has done for you what you think you've done for yourself.

To ask the question is like a 2 month old baby standing on his mother's lap and slapping her in the face and claiming, "you don't know what to do with a baby"...that baby hasn't done a thing for himself...somebody else has contributed to everything he is, has, and does and only displays ignorance and arrogance with the accusation.

Since you like to smoke...smoke that TI...to da nub!"

Don't put me on the REVOLT stage...it would proly be a real REVOLT!!!!"

The critic asserts that TI and others are somehow self-made people and that Whites aren't responsible for their material success. However, even if the most conservative numbers are used, it is White folk, by far and large that are responsible for financially supporting TI and many other Black artists. The music industry itself is supported and owned by companies controlled mostly by White individuals. Then consider publishing and distribution. This is nearly exclusively White controlled and owned. 

In other words, without green dollars delivered by White people, we would not hear of TI and many other Black artists. He and many of them would have a work a day job just like the rest of us. In addition, many of our leading artists realize that there are more talented individuals out there, but they received some type of break or opportunity themselves and in many cases, those breaks were given by White people and or organizations. 

What is the message...Like Killer Mike said of the era or reconstruction, America is GREAT when we all learn to work along with one another!

America WAS great and various periods of time during American history and I agree we need to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN as a whole, but if it never arrives, I KNOW I would not enjoy the success that I do enjoy in any other country in the world...No COMMUNISM did not afford, neither will it afford me this opportunity to speak freely and hold and share my personal beliefs and values. Neither is only one race of people responsible for any of my material success...So yes, lets MAGA!!!!

Blessed! 

Read more!

Pastors Make A Stand For Morality & Against Racism

Read more!

A NEW Supreme Court Justice

Judge Neil Gorsuch takes the oath to become the 113th Justice of the Supreme Court https://t.co/kGVc1GAln2 https://t.co/1K5BjjKBC5

— CNN (@CNN) April 10, 2017

Read more!

Islam, Submission With No Peace Pt. 16: CAIR Calls Franklin Graham "Un-American"

It HAS to be Friday the 13th to read and hear about this story. It all begins with participants selected to serve at the Presidential Inauguration ceremonies of Donald Trump. 

It seems that Franklin Graham, the son of renown Evangelist Billy Graham was selected by Team Trump to pray at the inauguration.  Not so fast says the nations leading Muslim Advocacy group:

"If President-elect Trump truly seeks to unite our nation as he promised in his acceptance speech, he will limit the list of those offering prayers at the inauguration to religious leaders who work to bring us together, not to create divisions between faiths,"..."Rev. Graham's ill-informed and extremist views are incompatible with the Constitution and with American values of religious liberty and inclusion." ~ Nihad Awad CAIR National Executive Director

CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) urged President Elect Trump to can Graham from ceremonies if the aim is to unite the country because of past statements of Graham. Pointing to statements such as "Islam is not compatible with American values" and "Every Muslim that comes into this country has the potential to be radicalized--and they do their killing to honor their religion and Muhammad." CAIR claims that statements such as these show that Graham is intolerant and therefore unworthy to pray at an American function designed to support the highest office in the land. 

Does CAIR Have A Valid Point?

In my opinion DEFINITELY NOT!!!!

First, every Muslim would agree that, according to their scriptures, the practice of Islam is not just something that can be shrugged off as a fancy way to pass time. Islam is an all life encompassing faith. A way to live and view the world. 

As we have noted on this BLOG, America is a place that traditional Muslims believe is a mission field, to be "settled". In addition, the ultimate aim of Islam and the highest goal in any society is Sharia. Sharia, also known as "Sharia Law", is the all encompassing guide to life as interpreted by Muslim Clerics imploring the Quran and the Hadith. Sharia also includes elements of concensus by Clerics on issues and analogy. From this combination of what are considered holy and inspired scriptures, and additional holy sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad, and other aspects, Sharia Law takes shape and is established. 

The website of the Interfaith Alliance, largely driven by liberal and inclusionist religious philosophies and interpretations of scripture, faith and law, states the following regarding Sharia law:

19. What is Sharia?

Sharia stands for Islamic or sacred law. It is an Arabic word meaning “the way” or “the path to water.” For centuries, Muslim scholars have given a broad definition of Sharia reflecting the diversity of interpretations on how Muslims have attempted to best understand and practice their faith.
The general definition of Sharia as understood by most American Muslims is as follows:
Sharia represents how practicing Muslims can best lead their daily lives in accordance with God’s divine guidance. It may be generally defined as the Islamic law revealed by God to the Prophet Muhammad. That divine law was then interpreted by Muslim scholars over the centuries. Among the primary aims of the Sharia are the achievement of justice, fairness and mercy.
The five major goals of the Sharia are the protection of sound religious practice, life, sanity, the family, and personal and communal wealth. The acknowledgement of sound local customs throughout the world is one of the five basic maxims of the Sharia according to all Islamic schools of law.

They go on to say:

"Currently, 35 countries incorporate Sharia into their civil, common or customary law. The diverse manner in which these countries apply Sharia to daily life highlights how Sharia is neither static nor rigid but instead a reflection on how different communities interpret it."

Thus, by admission, Sharia not only judges conflicts based on religion or moral meta-ethics. It is Sharia that decides matters of family and life in civil and even secular society. It is Sharia that is the ultimate authority and way to live. All other governmental systems are secondary to Sharia and at the very least should incorporate some aspects of Sharia. So the aim is to slowly make each state or situation, one that can be ultimately governed by Sharia itself.

I know, my Muslim readers take aim at my statements here and will jump up and down to say that I am intolerant also. But unlike them in their dissent, I think there is ample proof that what Graham says and what I am contending here is totally true if getting to the truth is the aim. 

On the Interfaith Alliance website, the question regarding the compatibility of American Civil law and Sharia is ashed:

22. Is Sharia compatible with American law and values?

Many aspects of Sharia or Islamic law are consistent with modern legal rules found in American law. For example, both legal systems allow rights to personal property, mutual consent to contracts, the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings, and the right of women to initiate divorce proceedings.

If and when religious laws conflict with American law, the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment prohibit American government, including the courts, from substituting religious laws for civil law or following religious laws that violate civil law. This prohibition applies to all religions equally.

Now, this is very smart. By using analogy (a tenet of Sharia) the question is kind of turned on its head. It is certainly true. The government cannot simply upend religious freedoms and laws, however, 

according to what has already been said, Sharia is "sacred law". Now if religion means anything at all, what is "sacred" is at the highest point of the practice of religion and religious values. 

Such conflicts do not exist within Christianity to the degree that they exist in Islam. The bible condones and encourages "good citizenship" even in the face of what is ugly and uncomfortable. It does not teach to "uproot" as teaching exist in Islam to do the same.

We can speak much more on this in the comments, but to examine Franklin Graham's statements and to declare those statements as Un-American demand that the issue of what is American be examined as a whole. 

Since the State cannot establish religion, then how is it that it is American for any religion to have their law code, as interpreted or otherwise, in their legal system based on itself? 

I understand that American society, at least most would like to think, is based on Judeo-Christian values emanating from the bible and what we view as "sacred scriptures" as well. However, the difference here is that the concepts from the scriptures are the guide as opposed to the chapter and verses themselves. 

Conclusion
I certainly have oversimplified the argument, and will be more detailed in the comments if necessary, but I hope that this provides good food for thought. Franklin Graham is certainly American and what he believes about those who are dedicated to and bound to the practice of what is becoming a very diverse religion of Islam (as the difference between fundamental and liberal Islam is really beginning to display itself) must also know that Islam, as practiced and encouraged by the majority of Muslims who read and interpret the same book as American liberal Muslims do, have very different ideas about the methods that should be used to bring about Sharia, but share equally in embracing the goal of Islam and that goal is to bring about Sharia, or a state that is subject to and under the rule of Allah. 

I don;t think that there is a question about that to any Muslim faithful to their faith. Whereas, the Christian already knows that there is NO KINGDOM on Earth that is the final place of God's rule. Jesus said that HIS Kingdom was not of this world and one day there will be a new kingdom where there will be rest. Though every Christian strives every day to make this world better and to do as much good in this world as possible, we do not demand by any means necessary that all men are subject to us or what we believe. We see evidence of that in education, social life and all, YET we know that Christ reigns anyway, in spite of what men do or think. 

Blessed! 

   

Read more!

Donald Trump's "New Deal" To The Black Community

Last week, by way of Media Takeout, of all sites, President elect Donald Trump laid out a plan and proposal to the Black community stating specifically what he would like to accomplish during his term in office. 

Say what one will, the is the first time I have seen any political official at the highest office specifically and publicly address the Black community and its needs from a social and political standpoint. 

Trump is certainly "Whitening Up" the White House and top levels of Government, but I hope that he is sincere in addressing these issues and more, because the Black community needs a change, politically, socially and a renewal of faith beginning in the faith community. 

Tell me what you think about these things:

DONALD J. TRUMP’S NEW DEAL FOR BLACK AMERICA – WITH A PLAN FOR URBAN RENEWAL 

Nobody needs to tell African-Americans in this country that the old new deal from the Democratic Party isn’t working for them. In election after election, Democratic party leaders take African-American voters for granted and year after year the condition of Black America gets worse. The conditions in our inner cities today are unacceptable. Too many African-Americans have been left behind. 

African-Americans need a new deal from their next president. Donald Trump is proposing just that. The following are ten promises announced by Donald Trump on October 26, 2016 in Charlotte, NC that will define a new deal for Black America: 

1. Great Education Through School Choice. We will allow every disadvantaged child in America to attend the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school of their choice. School choice is the great civil rights issue of our time, and Donald Trump will be the nation’s biggest cheerleader for school choice in all 50 states. We will also ensure funding for Historic Black Colleges and Universities, more affordable 2 and 4-year college, and support for trade and vocational education.

2. Safe Communities. We will make our communities safe again. Every poor African-American child must be able to walk down the street in peace. Safety is a civil right. We will invest in training and funding both local and federal law enforcement operations to remove the gang members, drug dealers, and criminal cartels from our neighborhoods. The reduction of crime is not merely a goal – but a necessity.

3. Equal Justice Under the Law. We will apply the law fairly, equally and without prejudice. There will be only one set of rules – not a two-tiered system of justice. Equal justice also means the same rules for Wall Street.

4. Tax Reforms to Create Jobs and Lift up People and Communities. We will lower the business tax from 35 percent to 15 percent and bring thousands of new companies to our shores. We will also have a massive middle class tax cut, tax-free childcare savings accounts, and childcare tax deductions and credits. We will also have tax holidays for inner-city investment, and new tax incentives to get foreign companies to relocate in blighted American neighborhoods. We will empower cities and states to seek a federal disaster designation for blighted communities in order to initiate the rebuilding of vital infrastructure, the demolition of abandoned properties, and the increased presence of law enforcement.

5. Financial Reforms to Expand Credit to Support New Job Creation. We will have financial reforms to make it easier for young African-Americans to get credit to pursue their dreams in business and create jobs in their communities. Dodd-Frank has been a disaster, making it harder for small businesses to get the credit they need. The policies of the Clintons brought us the financial recession – through lifting Glass-Steagall, pushing subprime lending, and blocking reforms to Fannie and Freddie. It’s time for a 21stcentury Glass Steagall and, as part of that, a priority on helping African-American businesses get the credit they need. We will also encourage small-business creation by allowing social welfare workers to convert poverty assistance into repayable but forgive-able micro-loans. 

6. Trade That Works for American Workers. We will stop the massive, chronic trade deficits that have emptied out our jobs. We won’t let our jobs be stolen from us anymore. We will stop the offshoring of companies to low-wage countries and raise wages at home – meaning rent and bills become instantly more affordable. We will tell executives that if they move their factories to Mexico or other countries, we will put a 35% tax on their product before they ship it back into the United States. 

7. Protection from Illegal Immigration. We will restore the civil rights of African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and all Americans, by ending illegal immigration. No group has been more economically harmed by decades of illegal immigration than low-income African-American workers. Hillary’s pledge to enact “open borders,” – made in secret to a foreign bank – would destroy the African-American middle class. We will reform visa rules to give American workers preference for jobs, and we will suspend reckless refugee admissions from terror-prone regions that cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. We will use a portion of the money saved by enforcing our laws, and suspending refugees, to re-invested in our inner cities. 

8. New Infrastructure Investment. We will leverage public-private partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over 10 years, of which the inner cities will be a major beneficiary. We will cancel all wasteful climate change spending from Obama-Clinton, including all global warming payments to the United Nations. This will save $100 billion over 8 years. We will use these to help rebuild the vital infrastructure, including water systems, in America’s inner cities. 

9. Protect the African-American Church. We will protect religious liberty, promote strong families, and support the African-American church. 

10. America First Foreign Policy. We will stop trying to build Democracies overseas, wasting trillions, but focus on defeating terrorists and putting America First.

We all know that the so called vanguards of the Black community, the NAACP doesn't like #1. Why? Because of the too close relationship and annual contributions of the teacher's union. Yes, they sell out our Black children for annual contributions from some of the same one's promoting policies that abuse our children. 

Anyway, when has any party, even the party under the so called "first Black President" (Bill Clinton) or the REAL first Black President, Barack Obama, every reached out in such a manner? It seems that President Obama was afraid that he would be perceived as being too "pro-Black" all the while elevating homosexual rights to civil rights and rights similar to those based on race. Shame on him! That was certainly a bad move, as as it is being talked about now, by Black men and women all over the country, was the wrong thing to do to respect and honor the Black community and our REAL and unique struggle from slavery to civil rights. 

I guess they will learn....

Blessed!

Read more!

False Prophet Carn Strikes Again

Deut 18:22~ when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.

Please believe me, I don't know Brian Carn, I have no axe to grind against Brian Carn and have no sort of negative interaction or ill feelings towards Brian Carn...but THIS displays what cannot be denied according to the word of God. This prophet has NO word from the Lord. Time to repent Elder Carn!

Don't forget THIS STORY that we've already done on the utterances of this man.

Blessed!

Read more!

WE Are Americans

We are Americans and We DO NOT want liberal left policies that drive a liberal left agenda

We want our freedom and our freedom to live UNDER GOD! We REJECT your liberal leanings to remove God from us and to rationalize your material belief system as "progress". Just in case you didn't know, We are Black Americans, we are White Americans, we are Latin Americans, We are Asian Americans, We are Christians, We are Jews, We are Muslim, We are Hindus, We are Buddhists, and a host of other religious beliefs, but WE ARE AMERICANS!!!!

We are Republicans, We are Democrats, We are Independents, We are business owners, We are homemakers, We are traditional and non traditional families, We are single moms and dads, We are Grandparents raising our grandchildren, We are CITIZENS...

We are AMERICANS who want and value our freedom  and right to live out the values of our faith without fear and intimidation and public shame. We desire to live out our freedoms above your rhetoric of "tolerance", that uses the courts to beat down individuals and business who stand for religious values and freedom, all the while claiming that you believe in "legal reform".

You've told those of us who struggled through hell, by nothing more than FAITH and the God of the bible, that we are the ones "discriminating" and "unpatriotic"???

We REJECT your assessments as the garbage it was when the very thought came from the embers of hell!!!! WE are patriots, no less than you and true to the values that has made us strong!

You allowed a foriegner, someone who pays NO TAXES, George Soros,  to try to reshape us, and create us in his image. But George Soros your money cannot buy the good, common and everyday people of America! We KNOW who we are and what we believe!

Your propaganda machines, called "news organizations", so blind in their hate and so against traditional moral values, only want blood and WE see it and turn their talking heads off the air. Today, you sit around tables flabbergasted, and shocked and yet still YOU can't even discern that not only did White & Rural America back this President elect, but Inner City and Suburbian Black America, religious America, men, women and  foreign nationals backed the IDEA that AMERICA can be great again and DOES NOT wish to be the social dumping pot of the world, embracing any and every moral value proposition because it makes us "feel" good!

It is RIDICULOUS to question the safety of our women and daughters in public restrooms, yet you made it so important to place OUR families in compromising situations!!!! Our ladies sports and athletics should be reserved for WOMEN born biologically as women. Yet you allow boys to compete against them calling it a requirement of Title IX, when ALL of us know better!!! RESPECT our women and girls!!! You elitists protect yours, do the same and protect ours!

You Allowed George Soros to fund anarchy and unrest, to promote feminism, racism, and hatred all the while claiming that it was "progress:"...
SHAME on you, SHAME on you!!!!

President Obama, you and Hillary under your leadership, planted homosexual rights all over the globe. You redefined citizenship, you redefined marriage and TOOK AWAY, our American freedom in the process. Our freedom to educate our children in values that we believe in...our freedom to serve causes we believe in publicly and openly without being shamed or publicly denigrated.  Our freedom to protect the rights of innocent, unborn babies who a blind Supreme Court said are not "people with rights" while they are in the womb.

YOU did all of this, without doing a thing to help Chicago, Ohio, Michigan or any of the cities in which we BLACK people had high rates of poverty and suffering. YOU CAUSED THE DEMOCRAT TO LOSE THIS ELECTION CYCLE!

You told Planned Parenthood, to stay with you as you "handled" us religious people, coming to our churches "pretending" that you would stand for our morals and values. You DIDN'T You failed the religious, even making laws against us and not defending our values. You stabbed us in the back, appointing some of our leaders who loved their position in your White House atmosphere, more than calling for you to repent and reform. 

News, tell parents to tell their children THE TRUTH!!! Tell them that their government and many of its officials shunned them and their needs and wanted to create something that the Constitution of the United States did not create...That America was and is a place where freedom and personal achievement is valued.  

It was your choice to denigrate our rights and religious freedom, rights paid for by the shedding of blood, which is the highest covenant, that caused your PARTY TO LOSE TO THE REPUBLICANS!!!!

I HOPE you can understand. Black America wants safe streets and we know better than believing if all the police were Black that things would be better, we KNOW that is not true!!!We need a morals and values revolution, because WE ARE AMERICANS, and no matter what that meant when this country was founded, it means that much more for me, a BLACK man, my children, and all fellow citizens regardless of race, creed, color or nationality. 

Read more!

Open Boarders, Open Society & The Desire To Control The World

UPDATE 11/13/2016
NEW: See the Soros 60 Minutes interview referenced in this article at the end of the article. 

As the Presidential election draws near, I can only hope that our nation, and its voters as a whole, makes a decision to uphold traditional values, which include the restoration of traditional family values and rejects continued interference in moral propositions from activist courts. Yes, there are many issues to vote for even if one is not excited about the candidates for whatever reason.

There are issues and things being said that the average voter has no clue about. It is my intent to reveal a slight bit of the rhetoric being said this election and why certain individuals are so intent on placing their candidate at the top of the world's greatest and most powerful free nation.

It all begins in Hungry in about 1930.

Tavidar and Elizabeth Schwartz gave birth to a son named George. Tavidar had served in a POW camp in Russia during WWI giving himself to the aspects of a cult language and belief system called "Esperato". The reason I say "cult" language and system, is because Esperato was and is what is called a universal language that all men on Earth are encouraged to learn and use. ie: it is natural man's reversal of Babel and the language confusion that God brought about on Earth. It is the foundation of the "one world" vision of globalism encouraged by secularists, materialists, and metaphysical naturalists. The idea is that if we speak the same language...you know the rest...

In about 1944, when George was just 14 years old, Jewish persecution was at an all time high. During the invasion, Jews were marked for death. At that time Tavidar, who was a lawyer, saw to it that the family name was changed to "Soros" which in Hungarian meant "successor" {Interestingly enough, Soros in Greek, the biblical language, means "Coffin" and is used 1 time within scripture.}

Simultaneously with the name change, was the conspiracy to not be identified with or as a Jew. It seems that Elizabeth hated her Jewishness anyway and Tavidar did not see it as profitable either. Besides, all the Jews around the family were dying or being sent to death camps. Therefore, George learned at a young age to conform, relate, pretend and collaborate, even against his own lineage. As the Jews were sent to death camps and as their property and wealth was confiscated, it was George Soros, a 14 year old boy that assisted the death squads and took the material spoils for himself as well.  In 1998 Soros stated the same sentiments to all Americans on the news broadcast magazine show "60 Minutes" . He said that although the threat of death was very real, the 2 years (44-46) were the "happiest times in his life". Here is a statement from him on the show:

"I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn’t be there, because that was — well, actually, in a funny way, it’s just like in the markets — that is I weren’t there — of course, I wasn’t doing it, but somebody else would – would — would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the — whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the — I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.” ~ George Soros, 1998 "60 Minutes" CBS. 

Then again, on Sept. 29,2006 George told the United States Congress that he had "no sense of guilt" in helping the German's take the property of the Jews, just in case they didn't believe him previously. Remember, he was riding with a man making decisions to have people committed to death camps that he called his godfather, covering his identity as a Jew. He changed his name and went by the name of Sandor Kiss during this time. So Soros became an actor, playing a role, watching his fellow countrymen taken away from their homes, families split, assets taken, consigned to death and he called it the "greatest time" of his life.

From there, he escaped Hungry, attended a Esperanto conference in Bern, supposedly met agnostic philosopher of science, Karl Popper, the father of the requirement of "falsification" for scientific method, and adopted an "Open Society" world view that he has developed over time and that he is attempting to promote all over the world. The term "Open Society" means a society in which "freedom is maximized so that individual citizens can live as they desire to live"...

Go HERE to find out what Hillary Clinton's supposed vision is regarding this...It is nothing more than a mini-Soros version

Interestingly enough, while promoting the "open society" concept he operates in secret bankrupting countries while making profits. He promotes that the "rich should pay their fair share of taxes" and even pay more than they owe if necessary or the benefit of all. However, he does not do that. His office is located in New York, however his business and business assets are located offshore, where taxes are not due and the United States has no right of review of his books or records. In fact, his client list and investors and investment holdings are not subject to SEC regulation. His political theory and "Open Society" concept which is different and more encompassing than Popper's, is only a rouse to get the common man interested in his rhetoric, to spark appeal so that he can then mesmerize them with his words.

"I am basically in business to make money. I cannot and do not look at the social consequences of what I do" ~ George Soros, 1998 "60 Minutes" CBS

He is wealthy. He is said to be worth over $24 Billion. (Forbes 23rd in the world) In 1992, he bankrupted the Bank Of England, and made $1 Billion in the process. He has bankrupted the currencies of poor nations as well, including Malaysia who's Prime Minister openly said that Soros is one of those "Rich people from rich countries, who have no compunction about impoverishing the poor in order to enrich themselves"

As stated, his aim and the way he makes money, is by the control and collapse of financial systems and banks worldwide. The Rothschilds have to fear him and what he has learned to do to them and their money cartels all around the world.

He is a philanthropist to this degree...he funds causes that he likes, causes from which he can benefit, and causes which he can control, by setting up and establishing "foundations", appointing his own employees and using other methods for the purpose of promoting his agenda. 

Although he is a Jew by birth, he denies his heritage as a Jew, and he is anti-Israel. He claims to be in favor of Middle East peace, but reading through the tea leaves reveals that the peace he espouses, funds anti-Israeli groups and claims that Israel is the problem in the Middle East and should not have a state or at the very least share a state with the Palestinians, who have NEVER had a state in the Middle East or anyplace else. One such group that carries out his anti-Zionist agenda is a group called Telos, which is known to provide disinformation even blaming Israel for the Middle East problem. This group is funded by Soros. Read HERE

He is politically engaged both around the world and in the United States. He has funded Occupy WallStreet, Black Lives Matter, and a host of other organizations for the cause of changing the landscape and political agenda of America. HERE 

The Soros social agenda in the world and for America:

*Legalize drugs

*Promote euthanasia

*Promote abortion and abortion rights

*Promote atheism

*Promote sex education (population control)

*Promote gun control

*Promotes the LGBT agenda

*Promote Unfettered immigration (path to citizenship not necessary)

*Make religion simply another choice like all others in society

Why homosexuality? Soros believes that the world is overpopulated by 6 billion people. He believes that we only need about 1 billion people in the world. The way to decrease population is to increase homosexuality and promote assisted killing for people with dreadful diseases.

Recently Wickileaks, released  how Soros, not President Obama nor the United States White House, directed Hillary Clinton, then Secretary Of State, on what to do in Albania. This is what he told the Secretary of State to do:

“two things need to be done urgently” “bring the full weight of the international community to bear on Prime Minister Berisha” “appoint a senior European official as mediator.” After which Soros gives Clinton three names to choose from.

Who is in control if international affairs of the United States? The united States or George Soros? Could this be why Hillary deleted emails?

Finally, George Soros is the main contributor to the Hillary Clinton campaign for President, wouldn't you know it...also, who would have thought, the Clinton Foundation...Remember he gave more than $27 Million to defeat George Bush, and almost went into seclusion when the Supreme Court's decisions went against the democratic party efforts. He is said to have given roughly $10 Million to Hillary's super PAC, Priorities USA which directly contributes to her campaign, $2 Million to American Bridge 21st century which is a super PAC that only focuses on negative or anti-trump efforts, $5 Million to Immigrant Voters Win, that is dedicated to getting out liberal and democratic Hispanic voters to the polls, another $5 Million to PCS dedicated to stopping Republican efforts for voter integrity, and over $700,000 to various PACs to promote democratic ideals, goals and agendas.

Why Should you be concerned?

The vision of the Democratic Party IS the vision of the world of George Soros. His vision does not simply happen to align with the democratic party views. His vision inspires the Democratic Party's views. His views are responsible for the shape and political landscape and agenda for the Democratic Party. God has no place of significance in the Soros world and is only a "private" act in the Democratic Party world. Soros  controlled the Clinton State Department and significantly influenced if not led the Obama Presidency. George Soros is doing in America, what he has done elsewhere, creating a country in his own image:

“I fancied myself as some kind of god …” “If truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble.“

Later he said again, just in case you didn't understand:

“It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.“

Soros, is, in his mind, a god. he is a controller of the way things are, and if he cannot control things he will do what he can, by way of using his influence and money to make things the way he wants them to be.

The ONLY thing that prevents Soros agenda from becoming the right now reality that he wants it to be is God himself and the prayers of HIS people. It is the TRUE AND LIVING GOD that is using George Soros to do his bidding. George will die like any other man when God is finished using his evil intent for the glory of God in this world. 

Clinton or Trump, we BETTER pray!

The influence of Soros is so much of a factor that Hollywood elite have arisen to address the issues. Here is a video from actor Jon Voight regarding the issue.

Blessed!

On a free and tolerant society.
George Soros was supposedly so influenced by Karl Popper that he adopted his open society constructs from him. Soros has taken Popper's concepts further than Popper did by saying that his "open society" is a source of truth, which is something that Popper did not contend. Here popper identifies the limits of his open society construct, introducing the "paradox of freedom" concept. 

Atheist Philosopher Karl Popper

“The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”  ~ Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies

SOROS 60 MINUTES INTERVIEW 

Read more!

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.  

Conclusion

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 message...in Jesus name! Amen!!!

Blessed!

Read more!

Has God Ordained Donald Trump , Hillary Clinton or any Presidential Candidate to be President?

During almost every election cycle, someone invariably insists that their candidate has been "sent by God" to either lead the nation or be appointed to position. The same can be said of the current election cycle. 

The Arguments or should we say Rationalizations?

Some, such as David Hodges of 'The Common Sense Show Blog',  contend that similar to Jehosaphat that Trump has somehow been "chosen by God" to lead the nation even if he is unaware of it or not. Although he doesn't mention it like this, Trump is similar to the Babylonians who ransacked Israel at the behest of God as a fulfillment of prophecy and is destined to be President. Hodges, like many, are not disillusioned that Trump is godly, but contend that God is doing "something" within the nation that he would not do otherwise. 

Then there is Michelle Bachmann who, in an interview with CBN invoked what she thought was contained in the book of Daniel:

Ps. 75:6-7 ~ 6-For promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south. 7-But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another.

I believe she was referring to Daniel 4:17, only that America is NOT a "Kingdom" as Daniel outlines. However, Bachmann indicated that out of the initial 17 Republican candidates and against all odds, Donald Trump was raised to the top  to be the Republican nominee, and by virtue of that his candidacy is surely of God and is something that she will support because she does not believe that "God sits things out" or is uncaring about the Presidency. Nevertheless, her interview can be found HERE. 

I am not saying that either person is wrong for their thinking and for examining the issue in light of truth and why we are here today doing what we are doing. But there are some problems with what I believe may be "linear thinking" on the issue, especially as it pertains to a God who does not necessarily think linearlly (sic) or for purposes that we can outline. 

The first problem I believe is a slippery slope problem.

Slippery Slope

Arguments like Hodges and Bachmann's could be froth full of problems for Christians to explain. In order to defeat contradiction, one should be able to apply the same or similar logic to many different things and even other leaders and leaderships and not exclusively "American" leaders or leadership, that is unless one thinks that God only cares about America and or Americans. 

Example, Adolph Hitler (1939-1945) was certainly "raised up" to lead the German people at a time in history. I am confident that there were some great things that happened under his leadership. However, we KNOW that some of the most horrific things in modern history also happened under his leadership as well. The murder of over 12 million primarily Jews and the ungodly racist hatred and anti-semitism that spewed from the nation as a result could hardly be said to be either "prophetic" or "ordained by God" under any circumstance. Yet it happened.

The leadership of Pol Pot(1975-1979) killed and destroyed over 1.7 million people, nearly a third of the Cambodia. Was he "raised up" by God or was he a part of "prophecy"? It cannot be argued that he led the people. 

There there is former Russian leader Jozef Stalin(1932-1939) who is said to have murdered over 7 million people or caused them to have been put to death.

How about Fidel Castro (1959-1999) of Cuba? Former leader of a nation that has gained new open relations with America. Fidel is said to have been responsible for killing over 30,000 Cubans for disagreeing with his leadership.   

So it is a very difficult argument to make that either Hitler, Pot, Stalin, or Castro were fulfillment of prophecy, especially when, like Trump, neither of their names were called by God. It is furthermore difficult to say that either of these people came to power because they were "ordained" or sanctioned by God to do what they did by virtue of their exaltation or ability to reach the heights of leadership. 

In fact the latter thought would give rise to a warped conclusion that no matter how a person acts in "office" or after being "raised up" that they are somehow "special" to God or similar to the Blues Brothers "on a mission from God".  This is confusing for many especially in light of NT admonitions saying that we, as Christians, should be "subject" to the authorities that rule because their rule is because of God or their office is sanctioned of God. (Rom. 13:1, Titus 3:0, 11, 1 Peter 2:13-17)

I think out of hat conclusions along these lines, that leaders are "of God" and are to be obeyed and or reverenced simply because they are in position, are equally as flawed.  

The Conclusion Of The Skeptic & Atheist

In the blog, "500 Questions about God & Christianity" the blog author, who describes himself as a "mild mannered former Christian" examines the issue regarding the 2012 Presidential election in which commentary was similar to what it is now regarding "God's plan for the Presidency". This is what the "former Christian" concludes:  

"So does God appoint evil leaders? According to the Bible, yes. 

This fact highlights many contradictions that exist in God’s behavior: he’s benevolent, yet gives rise to evil leaders; he leads his followers to vote for one leader, yet he appoints another; he guides the motives of all leaders, yet they still disagree; he orders his followers to do good, and then orders them to obey evil leaders; he punishes nations and people who are helpless, and grants victory to evil tyrants; and he insists he establishes all authority, and then denies establishing all authority. 

If the Bible is truly inspired by God, one wonders why such contradictions exist."

In short, the situation of "leaders being ordained of God" as "former Christian" suggests calls into question the character of God. If these are the only alternatives, I would agree. Thank God however, that none of what I have outlined is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the rise and fall of evil men and women to either secular or spiritual office. Please allow me to explain.

Alternate View

In this, I must lay a few layers of ideas and truths to set the stage for my ultimate conclusion. Please be patient and read through each section to see if my mini-conclusions are sound. I'll be glad to respond to feedback and modifications in the commentary section, so please don't hesitate...

The Sovereignty & Nature Of God

First, we know that God is sovereign. Sovereignty meaning that God can act in any manner that he wishes in accord with his nature, without question or being subject to any authority. However, we also know that God is good. A good God does not operate his sovereignty outside of the realm of his goodness. 

Now if this is to be accepted, we must reconcile how God is good. Is he good by nature or are his acts good simply because he says that they are good? If it is because he says or calls his acts good, then his goodness could be arbitrary. In other words, God could call even the most vile evil, "good". However, if his good or goodness is because his nature is good, then his good acts cannot be separated from his nature.  In fact, I would like to go further and state that if goodness exists at all, it is because HE (ie: God) is good. Now, I already hear the critic. They say well in that case, if evil exists it is because God is evil and that I cannot have it one way without the other. Well, I simply say that I side with Norm Giessler on this one who stated that God made evil possible, but man made evil actual by and according to his choice of evil!!!

With the free will contingency in mind, one of the greatest goodnesses(sic) of God would be the extension of free will to free moral agents. Individuals who both have the will and right to make a choice of God and or of evil. One could argue that was not God's original intent, as God did not allow Adam or eve to eat of the "Tree of the knowledge of good and evil"(Gen 2:9, 17), however God being God, knowing all, made a built in contingency in that Jesus was a propitiation for sin from the beginning of all creation. 

Free will that is made to do one thing or another is not free will. Being given overwhelming reasons to do something is still not a violation of free will, because in the end one could make a choice either to do or not to do. Being forced to do something is compulsion and possibly determinism. Although many individuals argue this regularly (that God compels both the righteous and unrighteous to act and do what he wants them to do) I will not deal with it in detail here. One thing that God has preserved among humanity is the ability of men to make choices. I believe that it would be a violation of God's "goodness" to strip men of that choice to implement either good or evil, make a good decision or a bad decision out of man's own mind. However, that choice can be directed by God and ultimately does not at any time escape the knowledge or preparation of God in any way. 

The Knowledge Of God

With that said, and backtracking on what I have already stated, we know that if God is God at all, then he is omniscient. This means that he has all knowledge, both past, present and future. There is nothing that has got by him or nothing that can catch him unaware or unprepared. This is where it gets sticky, God, because of his knowledge, has made certain determinations. Those determinations are based and rooted in his goodness. Those determinations are not merely "responsive", or not merely in response or as a result of what men and mankind does. If they are in response to man, then it seems that life, living and purpose are man centered as opposed to God centered or sovereignty inspired. However, it could be that what we 'think" is man centered or inspired is ultimately inspired by God, as nothing has happened that has caught God by surprise as stated. 

At this point many simply say, "did God ordain it or did he not?" The only answer that can be given is that at times, he does and has "ordained"however at other times he has "permitted" something to be that he has not necessarily "ordained". 

For example, no one can hardly successfully argue that God "ordained" a husband to kill his wife and kids or for a mother to do the same. Or for a baby or a baby's mother to die in a drive by shooting or by a stray bullet. Or for a person to rape and or molest another. No one can say that Go has ordained these things, YET every man has a appointed time to live and to die, and every person on earth is subject to be touched as a result of crime or evil.  

Quickly. I use "ordain" here to mean something that God has "decreed" or declared that will happen without question or failure. 

The further question is "how does God ordain" or what is the "process" by which he has decreed something? ie: is the process open to change even if the purpose or ultimate aim is fixed? These are things that the bible is not clear on and where our faith in HIM his nature and HIS will for us is exercised. 

The King & His Heart

The bible constructs that the heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord and that the Lord directs or turns that heart in a manner that pleases him. (Prov. 21:1) 

What this does not say is that God controls the King as a "puppet". Although at times a "puppet" could be made out of a person that follows the whims and dictates of their own minds and hearts. However, it does affirm that even the King can do no more or less than what the Lord has instructed, allows, or permits. So God setting the boundaries or parameters in no wise hampers free will.  

A Word On Pharaoh

Some conclude that Pharaoh was inexplicably tied to his own destruction because God "hardened his heart". (Ex. 7:3, 9:12, 10:20,27, 11:10, 14:4) I have often taught that this view, that God made Pharaoh obstinate as a result of his holding his heart in that position is incorrect. Pharaoh, who had control over his own heart, chose his obstinance against God of his own free will. However the language is similar to the language that a man uses when he has committed the crime of abusing his wife or children...in nearly every case the offender, in this case the man, will say that the wife or children "made" him do what he did. Of course we naturally know that no one took the hands of another and made them abuse them...however, the message is clear that the offender believes that the victims actions, however slight, caused the perpetrator of the crime to act. In any case, we all understand that the perpetrator is responsible for and had full control over their own actions unless they were working in self-defense.

Sisera & The Judges

One of the basic lessons of the Old Testament (OT) is that of the Judges and the "sin cycle" or the "cycle of restoration" that was displayed. We observe that like clockwork, when the people of God had a champion, they served the Lord, only to backslide when the Judge did not reign The people would indulge in sin, go through punishment for it, seek the Lord through calls for repentance and help, enjoy the blessings of restoration and renewal only to go back through the cycle again. 

During these times, it was clear that the Lord had allowed these things, even directing them clearly at times, for a purpose. In judges, it is clear that the purpose was to call men to prayer, fellowship and union with HIM. 

One such character that brought Israel to repentance and as such was a "servant" of God, was the character of Sisera. After judge Ehud died, the book of Judges records this:

Judges 4:1-3 ~ 1-And the children of Israel again did evil in the sight of the LORD, when Ehud was dead. 2-And the LORD sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan, that reigned in Hazor; the captain of whose host was Sisera, which dwelt in Harosheth of the Gentiles.3-And the children of Israel cried unto the LORD: for he had nine hundred chariots of iron; and twenty years he mightily oppressed the children of Israel.

Jabin had Sisera as a general and appointed him over Israel. Sisera "oppressed" Israel for 20 years. Notice the purpose of God was to call Israel BACK to himself after they had backslid, but at the same time everyone acted out of their own free will. Jabin's appointment was his. Sisera's oppression was his. The people's repentance to God was their own. However, it was orchestrated and directed by God for his purpose without missing a beat. The ultimate purpose, following the story and the book, was to bring the people of God to a deeper, new and better relationship with HIM. 

So it is with the precision of a weaver or someone making intricate details to the smallest of things that God sewed together the tapestry of Israel's past and our present. Do we understand the why all the time? Absolutely not. We are not God and neither are we required to be. That is where faith in HIS character takes over.      

Summary To The Point & Conclusion:
I've talked through many things, but here is a quick summary/snapshot of some of the things:

God is good
God is sovereign
God is omniscient

God acts in his sovereignty according to his nature
God has a plan according to his omniscience that will not be missed
God responds to man and mankind based on their response to HIM
God is active in the choices of man and not merely responsive

Man makes choices for which God cannot be blamed
God deals with man according to those free will responses
God ultimately uses whom he will to do his bidding. Those who do this do not necessarily always do honoring things, by their own freewill choices.

God's ultimate aim is to bring man into union and fellowship with HIM

The Question:

In light of these things, lets look back at the original or initial question:

Has God ordained Donald Trump , Hillary Clinton or any Presidential candidate to be President? 

I would contend that while God is certainly not indifferent, God's plan does not necessarily center around either the Trump or Clinton brand.  Neither candidate has a relationship with HIM to do "righteously" by the people of God. I contend that God's ultimate aim is to call  men and women of God to repentance, union and fellowship with HIM. Certainly a Trump presidency, similar to a Clinton presidency should call ALL men to repentance because we will be equally as jacked up, in my opinion and in many instances if not most, more jacked up with Clinton!

Just like when President Obama, Bush, Clinton and others were elected and throughout their Presidencies, God has placed America in a position in which it MUST pray and renew its relationship with God. Trump is not a man of "prophecy" in my opinion and I see no parallel to any biblical character with the exception of the admonitions of Solomon about the wealthy and boisterous. I certainly see no parallel of Clinton either and just because either of them has ascended to high political ranks, I see no special calling upon either of their lives other than that they, as well as all men, good or evil, are instruments in the hands of God.  

Trump is not a deliverer and certainly doesn't claim to be one. Clinton, is not a deliverer and does not make the claim either. So neither of them can be vessels in the sense that either of them have some ethereal call upon their lives to be President and to do righteously as in doing what the bible requires men and women to do.

Their policies and practices make it difficult for any bible believer to fully give themselves to support any. For example, Trump has no clue as to why men should not be allowed into women's bathrooms, and views gay rights as a matter of a business move, while Clinton thinks it is a benefit to continue to promote abortion as a choice greater than the life of the baby that is destroyed in the process.

So I will agree and disagree with both Hodges and Bachmann. If Trump is in prophecy he is in there by being a man that boasts and speaks great things, but as one who does not represent biblical values. Although neither of these candidates are Kings, although some may think they are, both are on the same footing. They are humans, seeking to lead a secular nation into secular ideals and values with a fascad that God is pleased. 

Personally, God could not possibly be pleased with either of the candidates. As stated, they both have serious issues. The lesser "issue" is not necessarily a "lesser evil". They are just different evils that should leave the true believer with the knowledge that God is at work by taking away any natural hope of our deliverance as a people, heed the call of God to prayer and seeking him diligently. If we were waiting for a natural deliverance we should be confident by now that such a deliverer is not coming through this or any new political or social process.

Jesus is Lord and remains Lord and is calling ALL of us to him for HIS leadership.This election cycle, I hope that people everywhere will be able to see that and know that no matter what, without God our nation is in trouble and will remain so. 

Blessed! 

Read more!