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.