MY TAKE ON THE 2012 ELECTIONS

 

It’s been a week since the elections, and I have taken the entire week to pray, meditate and discern what lessons are to be gained from the events of November 6^th.

First of all, my heart breaks at the condition of the Church. Unfortunately, there is still much racism in the Church as evidenced by the many Black pastors who encouraged their congregations to elect a man who has proven to govern in ways that are plainly contrary to Scripture. I am encouraged, however, by the many Black pastors who have not bowed to the idol of skin color, but who have called the Democratic Party the “anti-Christian party” for the inclusion of same-sex marriage in their platform. It seems like rather than bringing us all together, President Barack Obama has caused more division even within his own race.

I still hear the mantra that Obama is for the poor and the underprivileged. This is nothing more than fanciful delusion.  Barack Obama is for Barack Obama.  What poor have been lifted to the middle class in the last four years? What under-privileged have gained more privileges? What widows and orphans have found greater support and security as a result of Obama’s policies?—None. That is the plain truth. Yet those who have been deluded by race will find that they are in fact, as Joe Biden said, allowing others to put them back into bondage—government bondage. An entire book can be written on this one subject, so let’s move on.

There were three non-negotiable issues at stake in this past election:  the pro-life issue, the definition of marriage and the issue of religious liberties threatened by Obamacare. No Christian—and certainly no pastor—should have voted for any candidate on any level who would not support these three fundamental moral issues.  But apparently many did, and so this tells me that the pulpits failed to preach and teach the Christian responsibility to be faithful stewards of the gift of liberty. Judgment begins in the house of the Lord. America has chosen fear and bondage over faith and freedom, and the clergy have been silent when we should have been leading the nation to righteousness.

I believe the mistake we made was to ignore the most important issue impacting the peace and prosperity of our nation, and it is not the economy. It is the role that God plays in the life of our nation. No Republican candidate made a major issue of this “major issue.”  It is true for nations as well as individuals that if we seek first His Kingdom then all other things will be given to us. After all, what is our national motto? It isn’t “In the economy we trust.” or “In Congress we trust,” or even “In the People We Trust.” No. Our motto is “In God We Trust.” That’s where the debate must begin. For those who are afraid we’ll create a theocracy, we can take this opportunity to teach what it means to put our trust in the God of the Bible, and emphasize that it is our Bible-based faith that guarantees others the right to believe or not believe as they choose. Those who would remove the Bible from public discourse are cutting off the very branch they’re sitting on. They are unwittingly sowing the seeds of their own demise. All I am advocating is that we go back to timeless founding principles:

 “Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly implore His protection and favor…” –George Washington

If America is to survive there must be open and public acknowledgement of our trust in God and the Holy Scriptures as the principle source of governing standards for individuals, and for a nation of individuals.  After all, the statement is still true: “Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord”. (Psalm 33:12).

Now let's look at some of the specific areas that will be affected by this current election.

THE ECONOMY

The stock market has already begun to react negatively to Obama’s re-election. The more this administration executes its economic policies based on failing Keynesians philosophy, the more we will begin to look like Greece. There is no surprise here. Simply look at California. It is leading the way.

 FOREIGN POLICY

The simple fact that Obama was endorsed by the likes of Castro, Chavez and other Socialist leaders and tyrants is a clear indicator of where we stand on Foreign Policy. I’ve said before, and his policies continue to confirm that Barack Obama is the first “un-American” American president.

Now we have to be ever-vigilant that he doesn’t give away the store to the likes of our political foes like Putin, since after all, now after the elections he “can be more flexible.” God help us!

God help Israel who can no longer count on the United States to help protect them. After all, we can’t even protect our own people in the Middle-east. Remember Ben Ghazi?

 

CONCLUSION

America has chosen a leader who clearly has not ruled “in the fear of God,” and if he continues on the same course we will see a continuing degradation in America life on every front: the economy, foreign policy and in the moral atmosphere in which our children grow, as seen in the increasing coarseness and vulgarity on national bulletin boards like Facebook and Twitter..

In addition there will be increased domestic tensions as groups are pitted against one another for a larger piece of the shrinking government pie. Rather than becoming a more perfect “union” as our founders envisioned we will degrade into less perfect disunion. Rather than moving toward the ideal of being “one nation under God,” we will move in the direction of being many nations under government.

So what are we to do? Though I confess I was looking forward to a season of revival in our economy, in our standing in the world, and in the moral atmosphere of our nation, it appears that will not be the case. Apparently we will sink deeper as a nation, before we call out to God for help.

People of faith must make a radical commitment to God and to the cause of the Gospel. We must repent of our complacency, and contrary to popular thought, we must courageously talk about the two things that most impact our families and friends: religion and politics. We have allowed those who came out of the closet to push us in. That is unacceptable.

We must pray like it all depends on God and work like it all depends on us, or we may very well sink to levels beyond recovery as a nation. If God didn’t spare the nation of Israel when they turned their backs on Him in the eighth century B.C., why should we think He would spare us from our rebellion?

We have seen genuine revivals in our nation’s history in the 1700s and again in the 1800s. People of faith must be determined to see a national revival again, and begin by first repenting of our own sin, and desperately calling out to God for a demonstration of His manifest presence among the people. The answers to our nation’s problems have never been political; they have always been spiritual at the core. And as long as there is a Christ, there is hope. That is the reason I am hopeful. We read the back of the book. We win. I just want to take as many with me as possible, especially those in my own family. I pray you will join me until we see once again, “America bless God!”

CLERGY MUST BE OUT FRONT IN SUPPORT OF CANDIDATES WHO SUPPORT BIBLICAL VALUES

There is no legitimate reason for clergy to remain silent at such a critical time in our nation’s history. IRS rules not withstanding, we must encourage Americans to vote for Romney for president and Wendy Long for U.S. Senate. In local races we must choose candidates who support three non-negotiable issues: the sanctity of life, the preservation of authentic marriage and religious freedoms (threatened by Obamacare). Candidates for Congress such as Nan Hayworth best represent those values. On a State level we must support people like Christine Bello running against a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage Skartados for NY Assembly. In Dutchess County we have people like Neil DiCarlo and David Byrne who deserve the Christian vote. The clergy must speak out. Don’t be muzzled by an unconstitutional rule. James Garfield, 20^th President of the U.S. and an ordained minister told us,

“The people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities.”

We must demand these qualities, and be willing to put our names to it!

Come Out!

I just read an article reporting that a black bishop from Virginia is calling for an “exodus”  from the Democratic Party of those who call themselves Christians, particularly Black Christians. (The bishop objects to the label “African-American.” He says he is an American who happens to be black.) Bishop E.W. Jackson Sr. from Exodus Faith Ministries in Chesapeake, Virginia. says the Democratic Party is practicing a “cult-like devotion” to abortion, and has become the “anti-Christian Party,” as demonstrated by their rejection of biblical values, most notably, the inclusion of same-sex marriage in the Democratic Party platform.

No longer can the two labels be claimed with any sense of intellectual honesty. You can’t be a Christian and a Democrat now that the two are diametrically opposed.  Christianity is for protecting  life; the Democratic platform is for taking life through abortion. Christianity is about upholding God’s order for marriage and family; the Democratic Party is for redefining marriage and sanctioning homosexuality.

We need more Christian leaders who will teach and preach the truths of God’s intention for our nation. I therefore whole-heartedly add my Hispanic voice to my Black brother’s in saying, “Come out from among them!”

SHOULD A CHRISTIAN VOTE FOR A MORMON AND A ROMAN CATHOLIC?

Now that we know who the Republican presidential candidates will be, Mitt Romney, a Mormon, and Paul Ryan, a Roman Catholic, I’m often posed the question, “Should I, as a Christian, vote for a Mormon and a Catholic?”

First of all, the question presumes neither one is a Christian. Roman Catholic doctrine subscribes to the Apostle’s Creed, the unifying creed for all expressions of Christianity. Whether or not one is, in fact, a Christian comes down to their personal relationship with Jesus Christ. If they claim Him to be their personal Lord and Savior, and live to please Him, they are in the family. Many Roman Catholics do have a personal relationship with Christ, and are Christians. Mormonism is another issue.

But let’s look to the word of God as our authority for faith and practice to see how we should decide whether or not to vote for a Mormon and a Catholic. Does the Bible say we must vote for a Christian? If not, how should we vote?

The first evidence we have concerning choosing godly leaders is in the book of Exodus. Moses was trying to rule the nation of Israel all by himself.  Jethro, his father-in-law, told him to delegate to others, stipulating these requirements:

“But select capable men from all the people--men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain--and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.” --Exodus 18:20-21 (NIV)

And later God speaks through King David telling us,
“The God of Israel said, The Rock of Israel spoke to me: 'He who rules over men must be just, Ruling in the fear of God.’“--2 Samuel 23:3 (NKJV)

So, we see here that the fundamental requirement is to rule “in the fear of God.” The New Testament, particularly in Paul’s Epistles, further develops and adds detail to this requirement, but suffice it to say that God’s requirements for civic  leaders calls for men (or women) who submit to God and His laws, whether they call themselves Christian or not.

Jesus tells of a father who had two sons. He asked one to go to the field to work. He said he would go but never went. The other son said he wouldn’t go, but then changed his mind and went. Jesus poses the question, “Which one did the father approve of?” (Matthew 12:28) Of course, the father approved of the one whose actions—not words—were worthy.

President Obama claims to be a Christian, but his actions illustrate otherwise. Romney and Ryan have a history of standing up for Biblical standards like the sanctity of life and traditional marriage. Their actions have demonstrated that they are men who are more likely to rule “in the fear of the Lord.”
Therefore, regardless of religious labels—remember, we’re choosing civic leaders, not pastors—we should vote for the man or women who is more likely to rule, “in the fear of the Lord.” In this case, that would be Romney and Ryan.

“…it is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God,” –Abraham Lincoln

Candidates Should Know the Basics

I recently attended a “Meet The Candidate” event, and given the opportunity to ask questions, I asked, “What do you think of our national motto, and how would that impact—if at all—your governing philosophy?”

Well, talk about a deer caught in the headlights!  The candidate running for U.S. Congress on the Democratic ticket had absolutely no clue. With a puzzled look he asked, “What do you mean?”  So I asked him, point-blank, “Do you know what it is?”  Still, no response. I finally said, “It is ‘In God We Trust.’”  “Oh yes,” he said, “I didn’t understand the context of your question.”
Yeah, right? Then he said he believes in God but wouldn’t impose his religion on others.  In other words, our national motto means absolutely nothing when it comes to his governing philosophy. 

If this is the caliber of candidates we have running for national office we are in serious trouble. A candidate should at least understand the basics of our republican form of government and some simple details like our national motto. If they don’t know those basics, don’t even call yourself an American, no less run for office.

What President Obama's Endorsement of Same Sex Marriage Tells Us.

President Obama’s public statement affirming his endorsement of same-sex marriage reveals quite a number of things about him that should disqualify him from re-election in the minds of any reasonable and intelligent American.

First he said he has “evolved” to this position. This indicate he is not a man of principle but rather “goes with the flow.” In other words, he is like a reed in the wind. Whichever way the people lead him he will eventually go.  That is not leadership, but rather follower-ship.

One doesn’t “evolve” to a lower position. Evolution suggests development, not degradation. Same-sex marriage can only be seen as evolution if one is looking through the wrong end of the historical telescope. “Marriage” defined as the union of a male and a female was brought into the world by the Jewish law, bringing civilization to the earth. Obama would have us devolve to a pre-civilization state. That’s not moving “forward,” but rather backward.

Secondly he said it’s a “generational” thing, indicating that he learned much from his children. I thought it was up to the parents to teach the children right from wrong, not the other way around.

He went on to say that he was influenced by his family and friends, but he neglected to address the millions of Americans of more than thirty states that have codified marriage in state law as the union of a man and a woman. He’s not considering their view. This indicates that rather than being a President of the people, he is President of a special interest group trying to impose their morality on the rest of the nation that is still anchored in a Judeo-Christian standard of morality, which he apparently holds no allegiance to.

This will strengthen our resolve to do all we can to preserve a peaceful,  prosperous, and a developing society for our children. President Obama is continuing to polarize the nation and assuming wrongly that the nation will follow.

This is not about “civil rights” or “marriage equality.” Everyone has the equal right to marriage, but no one has the right to redefine the word to suit their standard of immorality.

Marriage is a non-negotiable issue second only to the life issue. We will fight for those values that have preserved our nation:  our peace, our prosperity and our liberty, and we will do all we can to elect men and women who will lead us in the “right” way.

President Obama's Challenge to the Supreme Court

This past week commentators have been talking about President Obama’s challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court. They were speculating on why he would make such patently false statements about the function and role of the High Court, particularly since he taught Constitutional Law at Harvard. The question seemed to be,

“Is he really that ignorant of the role of the Supreme Court, or was he just trying to isolate them as a target for his re-election campaign?”

I believe the answer is neither.

You see, his remarks were totally consistent with his liberal and progressive view of a “Living Constitution.” This was revealed when he spoke of the social consequences that would make striking down the law unacceptable. In other words, in his mind the highest authority was not the original intent of the authors of the Constitution but rather the presumed outcomes to meet the needs of society.

That was the established goal; the Constitution would have to conform to meet those needs, so the Supreme Court would have to rule in favor of the law and the interpretation of the Constitution would just have to conform. You see, President Obama’s idea of Constitutional Law subscribes to the ideology of Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes who said in a speech in 1907,

“we are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is...”

That is the ideology of a tyrant, one who sees himself to be intellectually superior to our founding fathers, and by virtue of his “evolved” intelligence he truly believes he knows better than those who have gone before.

No, President Obama didn’t “mis-speak.” He knew exactly what he was saying, and to him it made perfectly good sense. Given another four years to “rule,” and we may lose the last of those stable Constitutional principles that have preserved us a nation.

TRADEMARKING A TRAGEDY

According to the Orlando Sentinel, an attorney for Trayvon Martin's mother confirmed she had filed trademark applications for two slogans -- "Justice for Trayvon" and "I Am Trayvon." – slogans to be used for such things as DVDs or CDs.

This is a horrendous abuse of the name, and in fact, the very life and the death of a young man whose life was tragically ended by circumstances yet unknown.

Jerome Hudson, a spokesman for Project 21-The National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives, says people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton" “…have used this death for all the wrong reasons. They're dancing on his grave," he said.

We must be concerned about justice for everyone. That includes, both Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, without prejudice!

Racists and Race-baiters are to be found on left as well as on the right, perhaps more so. We must reject language of race and contain ourselves to the language of “right or wrong,” “legal or Illegal.”

We must reject prejudice on every side, and adhere to the principles of the rule of law, and the legal premise that one is innocent until proven guilty. That principle does not change with circumstances. Let’s get the facts out, apply the law, and let the chips fall where they may. And in the meantime, we must reject racism and race baiting wherever it may be found.

Never--never-- should we trademark a tragedy as was done in this case. It is the worst possible dishonor that can be paid to a young man created in the image of God whose life was unnecessarily and tragically ended. It is abominable.

SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC ISSUES?

There is an ongoing debate among political “talking heads” about whether the Republican presidential candidates should talk about “social” issues or “economic” issues, as if they were two unrelated areas of concern. This is a very shallow view, because the truth is that our economic problems are a product of our social dysfunction.

Let me explain. For example, Rick Santorum has come under fire for being too concerned about abortion, and marriage, yet the greatest indicator of family poverty is the issue of the single parent home. Disregard for the historic place of marriage in the culture, and the casual acceptance of sexual license outside of the marital covenant has done more to propagate poverty than any other single issue.

All the government programs established to address the issue have simply exacerbated the problem, because it is treated as an economic problem instead of a social concern. Though government programs have treated the symptoms, they have also created an atmosphere for poverty to spread and grow like a metastasized cancer. The economic programs may lessen the pain temporarily, but only a return to traditional social values will cure the disease.

When families stay together and are committed to helping one another, and holding one another accountable, economic efficiency is realized and ”waste” is not an issue.

The social values that have provided the most prosperous economic conditions the world has ever seen must be restored if the economy will ever thrive again, otherwise, we’re just medicating the patient with financial morphine, while the disease is slowly killing him.

If Americans don’t understand this, then we must educate America using whatever platform is available. Social and economic issues are not two unrelated areas of concern. We must address the social issues if there is to be any permanent solution to our economic woes.

Obama's Prayer Breakfast Theology

President Obama used the National Prayer Breakfast to espouse his belief that Jesus’ teachings validate his intent to tax the rich. Let’s look at this as a teachable moment.

I addressed this question in one of my previous blogs which Governor Sarah Palin reprinted in her book, “America By Heart.” Here is that excerpt:

Jesus’ teachings called for “healing the sick,” caring for the “least of these,” caring for widows and orphans, and generally, caring for any disadvantaged persons who need help. This is the Biblical imperative. But there is a fundamental truth that cannot be overlooked without missing the whole point of Christ’s message: These instructions were addressed to free people, not to governing bodies. Jesus didn’t say, “Be faithful in your payment of taxes to Caesar so that Caesar can care for the sick.” He always addressed the people, because it was the responsibility of individuals to act out of genuine care and concern for others, not the responsibility of an impersonal government body.

President Obama’s assertion that Jesus’ teachings gives government the authority to compel people to pay higher taxes is a deliberate twisting of God’s Word to gain power to confiscate private property of citizens. A prerequisite for Christian charity is always a willing heart, never compulsion or taxation.

President Obama’s twist on God’s Word to confiscate wealth comes from his background as a student of liberation theology which teaches compulsory redistribution of wealth, or Marxist socialism, not Christian charity.