Cal Thomas Talks From Both Sides Regarding Trump

In a 7/22/2016 commentary transcript, Cal Thomas condemned Ted Cruz’s Republican convention remarks as self-serving.

In those, the Texas Senator, instead of endorsing Donald Trump explicitly, urged the American people to vote their consciences.

It has yet to be explained how that message differed from that articulated by Trump’s own daughter who revealed she votes individual rather than party.

If anyone knows self-serving, it is Cal Thomas.

In “Blinded By Might”, the mass communicator allegedly repented of his involvement with Moral Majority and that his fellow Christians ought to embrace a spirit of political pacificism in order to assuage his own conscience.

However, with the ascendancy of Donald Trump, Thomas certainly didn’t mind contributing in the name of Christian values to an issue of National Review seeking to derail the Trump candidacy.

But with Trump triumphant, Thomas now goes out of his way to badmouth any conservative or Republican failing to march in lockstep or even question the direction in which this movement might be taking America.

Thomas often likes to point out his tenuous familial connection to Calvin Coolidge.

However, it seems the figure from political history he has the most in common with might be none other than Talleyrand.

By Frederick Meekins

Loyalty To Family Ought To Trump Trump

According to a number of Facebook theologians, Ted Cruz’s refusal or failure to endorse Donald Trump as the Republican presidential nominee wasn’t simply bad manners at best or strategically imprudent at worst. Instead, such thinkers invoke this rhetorical incident to call into question the validity of the Senator’s profession of faith as a Christian.

It is claimed that, earlier in the presidential campaign season, Ted Cruz promised to endorse whomever it was that voters (or moneyed secret societies dependent upon your view as to how this process is determined in the end) selected as the Republican candidate. At the time, it was believed that Donald Trump would never be triumphant and that this rhetorical stunt might be enough to forestall a third party bid on the part of the real estate tycoon that would likely result in Hillary Clinton winning the White House.

At the time, it seemed that Donald Trump and Ted Cruz might have had a considerable degree of compatibility. Some pundits and strategists even speculated that Cruz might have even made a good vice president on a ticket headed by Donald Trump.

Given Trump’s New Yorker mentality, his preferred strategy consisted of repeatedly insulting his opponents into submission and compliance. By the time he got around to Cruz, it seems this verbal barrage could not be turned off.

A number of Trump’s most scathing retorts against Cruz were actually aimed at the physical appearance of Cruz’s wife Heidi and at Cruz’s father for supposedly being part of the conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy. For unlike Trump, Cruz apparently takes serious the clause in the traditional wedding vows about marriage being until death and not until the first sign of crows feet.

Yet it would seem surprisingly to the most thoroughgoing and rigorous of Christians that PR stunts along the campaign trail are a far more serious matter than promises made before God at the marriage altar or loyalty to family.

Apart from a situation resulting in profound criminality such as treason, terrorism, or an act that would result in discernible quantifiable harm to an individual, one’s foremost loyalties ought to be to one’s family rather than the state necessarily. Even much less is owed to an individual that hasn’t even as of yet been elected to public office.

Ted Cruz might have promised to endorse whomever the Republican candidate was to be once the dust settled. However, that promise was made before Trump disparaged Cruz’s family in some of the most visceral ways imaginable.

Yet as of much concern to the spiritually inclined ought to be the elevation of this incident at the Republican convention to the level of a litmus test by which Senator Cruz’s profession of faith is judged valid or not.

There are a number of different interpretations as to the procedural mechanics by which an individual attains the state of salvation according to the various confessional traditions within the Christian faith. However, at the most fundamental, a Christian is someone that has professed faith in the Lord Jesus Christ for dieing upon the cross as payment for our sins and rising from the dead so that those that believe in Him might have eternal life in Heaven.

Nowhere in the historic creeds held by any legitimate denomination does it say anything about your mansion in the beatific beyond being forfeited as a result of renigging on your promise to endorse a particular presidential candidate should your relationship with this aspiring leader turn sour. Pietistic sticklers might snipe that Scripture dictates by someone’s fruits that you will know a person and that faith without works is dead.

According to the concepts of the orders of creation and subsidiarity, for the smooth functioning of human society, God established certain spheres of authority to oversee the complexity of the world and that the authority closest to a particular concern ought to be the one to address the matter. As such, the loyalty that ought to be the strongest should be for immediate family such as one’s spouse, children, parents, and siblings. In a properly balanced system, the loyalty and deference due a distant aspiring leader and even the offices which such figures seek ought to be minimal or perhaps even tentative at its most intense.

By conscious volition in terms of the marriage vows before God and men, the first loyalty of Ted Cruz is to his wife. Coming in at a close second is that to his father given that, from all indication, it seems that the two have an intact familial relationship. If anything, Ted Cruz’s profession of faith should be called into question if he did not prioritize their honor by taking some kind of symbolic stand that realizes that, while there might not be any other electorally viable alternative to Hillary Clinton other than Donald Trump, in good conscience he cannot pledge fealty to the man.

The conspicuously devout that pride themselves on finding a Biblical text for nearly every life contingency will no doubt rush to the Old Testament and invoke the narrative of Jepthah as proof that the believer is obligated to abide by his promises no matter how outlandish. Jepthah in Judges 11:31 vowed that he would offer as a sacrifice the first thing he saw emerge from his domicile upon his return home if the Lord would grant him victory over the Ammonites.

It turned out that that would be his daughter. And to prove that he was a man of his word, Jepthah did kill her.

Religious enthusiasts will rejoice, “See! This is proof that Ted Cruz is obligated to fulfill his vow to Donald Trump and the Republican Party.” Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps those holding to this position ought to contemplate the implications of what they are advocating.

Jepthah made this vow to God. So are those critical of Cruz regarding this matter telling us that Trump is, in their view, God or deserving of the same unwavering loyalty that is owed to the Almighty?

Even in terms of the traditional wedding ceremony, the binding lifelong nature of that union is probably characterized as such more so because one swears this promise not so much to one’s intended spouse as one is making this promise to and before a righteous and holy God. Since Donald Trump has been married three times with an undisclosed additional number of women before, during, and after each of these marriages, it is pretty safe to say that he does not rise to the same level of perfection as the triune Godhead.

Those that continue to insist that Ted Cruz is likely not a Christian or at least not a very good one need to be quite careful. For does not Scripture say that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God?

As such, does that not also include those leveling these kinds of accusations against Senator Cruz? If these critics continue to insist that they are without sin, does not I John 1:8 say of them that they are liars? If they are going to hold that the slightest shortcoming in the life of the professed believer is evidence of the likelihood that the individual is likely not a believer, might these types wallowing in self righteousness in regards to the Ted Cruz question be in danger of the hottest hellfire of all?

You aren’t going to get through life without a few mistakes which theologians would categorize as sin. On the Day of Judgment would you rather stand before God having failed to uphold the honor of your wife and father or having failed to placate a presidential candidate that by that point probably doesn’t even reside in the desired habitation of the Afterlife if he continues to insist that he has never done anything wrong in need of a Savior’s forgiveness in the first place.

By Frederick Meekins

The Pied Piper Of Apostasy?

Throughout the history of His people first in terms of pre-Messianic Israel in the form of the Psalms and then ultimately in terms of the Church following the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, music has played a crucial role in conveying the great truths of doctrine and teaching to the faithful. As such, many of these lyrical works referred to as hymns have endured for decades and in some instances even for centuries.

The Emergent Church movement is a philosophy of ecclesiology holding that much of what Christendom professed throughout the modern era was either in error or in needs of being reformulated as society transitionally progresses into an epoch more postmodern in orientation. However, given that its musical tastes have apparently found it difficult to expand beyond so-called “Seven Eleven Choruses” where songs composed of a mere seven words are sung over and over for what seems like eleven times in a row, this methodology of ministry might have hit something of a roadblock in terms of didactic lyricism.

Emergent Church poobah Brian McLaren announced that he thinks he may have found a way around this formidable impasse. He contends that, if generations of Christians have enjoyed classic songs to such a noticeable extent, why throw out the baby with the bathwater? That might happen more often in a literal sense than you think given the support for the deliberative neo-natal infanticide epidemic throughout the circles of religious leftism.

Instead of composing entirely new songs that may or may not catch on, according to an article published at Christianpost.com, Mclaren has decided to simply formulate new lyrics in compliance with his doctrinal preferences and peculiarities to those tunes that have stood the test of time. It also probably doesn’t hurt that most are probably so old that they have also passed into the public domain in terms of copyright status.

The first released by McLaren bastardized in this fashion is “Onward Christian Soldiers”. That particular hymn wasn’t good enough to be left alone, in McLaren’s view, because of its emphasis of warfare against “the foe”.

According to McLaren, his sensibilities were unsettled by the original version because “the foe” could be interpreted to mean “our neighbors outside of the Church”. McLaren further insists that metaphors of warfare were not in accord with Jesus’ and Paul’s program of peacemaking.

So once this apostate is finished, will he next turn his cross hairs to explicitly rewriting the Bible? The argument could be made that McLaren is already well down that path in terms of the warped practices he advocates as evidenced by his co-officiating at his son’s homosexual wedding.

Like it or not, the Bible is already full of war metaphors. For example, at His Second Advent, Christ does not intend to return as the friend the lowly Jesus, but instead upon a white steed amidst a battle where the blood is prophesied to flow up to the bridals of the horses.

The timid will respond that is merely a metaphor for the ultimate triumph over evil. Maybe so, as the interpretation of eschatological motifs is not the point of this particular analytical exposition.

As such, even if one wants to go that interpretative route, that does not take away from the truth that the Messiah proclaimed in the pages of Holy Writ is not one that turns away from conflict at all costs.

Jesus says in Matthew 10:34-35 that He has not come to bring peace but rather to set son against father and daughter against mother.

McLaren assures that he would not have as much of a problem with the song if “the foe” had been identified with his own preferred bogeymen such as greed, racism, domestic violence, or apathy. But aren’t those things that nearly all Christians oppose when these evils are defined in a traditional sense irrespective of whether one views oneself closer to one of the primary dichotomies of either Fundamentalism or Progressivism?

A primary danger of the Emergent Church movement is how it often defines terms in ways that catch the unsuspecting off guard. For example, corporate greed is often defined as little as simply making a profit or those participating in a business undertaking keeping most of their financial reward for themselves without most of it siphoned off in taxes or in the form of assorted bribes more commonly referred to as contributions to mollify an assortment of radical activist groups.

Likewise, “racism” becomes little more than failing to blame Whitey for the preponderance of problems gripping the contemporary world and that certain minorities should be excused for their substandard behavior. Domestic violence is downgraded simply to mean raising your voice in response to a nagging banshee that first raised her voice at you.

Nearly all rational Christians deep down want to diminish the impact of these evils when they actually exist in the world in order to make it a better place the few short years we reside here in comparison to the eons of pending eternity. However, from McLaren’s emphasis for a number of years now, one has to stop and wonder if this particular thinker actually believes that this world is all that exists.

For along with “Onward Christian Soldiers”, it seems that Brian McLaren has a particular disdain regarding hymns emphasizing and teaching about Heaven. This vehemence runs so deep that, in this article, McLaren admits that the first lyrics he mangled in the name of propaganda were actually to “I’ll Fly Away”.

In that particular song, the composer says that, in a few short days when his life on Earth is through, he’ll be flying away to Glory. In the McLarenite reworking, the emphasis is instead placed upon how “I’ll Get Involved” in which the theologian urges the faithful “not to evacuate but to engage and transform”. “Transform” is usually a euphemism how everyone else (with the exception of the religious and cultural elites who will continue to enjoy their posh lifestyles as vanguards of the proletariat in classic Soviet tradition) ought to have what they’ve worked to accumulate redistributed largely to those that often did not toil away in a similar manner.

Admittedly, there are a number of Christians that are, as is said, so heavenly minded that they are no earthly good. However, one must ask is McLaren’s problem with songs that misinterpret Biblical doctrine sound teaching and theology itself?

When “I’ll Fly Away” says that when life on Earth is through that the composer will fly away, such a declaration is not a call for the passive resignation and detachment of the Eastern mystics. McLaren would probably have little problem with that spiritual methodology when it came to emphasizing existential inwardness over objective creedal dogma or when the time came to separate people from their possessions during the great redistributive upheaval advocated by religious leftists.

Instead, the song is a realization that life here is short at its longest but that we at least have somewhere else worthwhile to go if we profess Christ as Lord and Savior. That is the essence of divine revelation.

James 4:14 reminds that life is but a vapor. Job 14:1 laments, “Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble.” Psalm 90:10 establishes that the average lifespan is three score and ten years and four with sorrow and suffering.

Yet Jesus assures in John 14:2-3 that He goes to prepare a place for us and that in His Father’s house there are many mansions. If, as McLaren seems to teach and imply, the fullness of Christ’s kingdom is in the here and now of this world rather than in the future glory of the Celestial City, we had better see what we can do about getting a refund from the Almighty.

To those steeped and even mired in pious verbal formulations, such a sentiment might sound overly blunt as they claim to be satisfied with a Jesus they perceive to be primarily about tender moral axioms. However, I Corinthians 15:19 boldly declares that, if only in this life we have hope, of all those in the world we are the most miserable and pathetic.

McLaren further conveyed that many of these songs that emphasize the transient nature of this temporal existence plant the worldview presuppositions that lead to the environmental abuse that put the planet in peril. But what about McLaren’s own globetrotting lifestyle as he hops from location to location spreading his borderline apostasy?

McLaren doesn’t simply sit at home writing books or Internet postings to advance his ideology. An inordinate amount of fossil fuels are consumed to enable him to speak at venues as divergent from one another as Australia and Great Britian.

Nor in his days of pastoral ministry was McLaren merely a humble storefront or country preacher. McLaren’s suburban Washington congregation (interesting how suburbs are evil when inhabited by those valuing free market exchange but perfectly acceptable when inhabited by Rolls Royce revolutionaries) took what was once a productive farm and converted it into a religious entertainment complex. Yet, in a podcast a few years ago addressing environmental issues, McLaren lamented how it was somehow an abomination in the eyes of God that people live within four square walls.

Every movement that wants to persuade others as to the superiority of a particular set of values at one point or another utilizes music in order to do so. Perhaps it is a sign of the theological bankruptcy of the Emergent Church that its foremost spokesman feels that the only way to do so is to hijack the joyful noise of a tradition on surer dogmatic footing.

By Frederick Meekins

Trump Equated With Italian Tyrant

On the cover of the summer 2016 issue of New Politics is a caricature of Donald Trump dressed as Benito Mussolini with his arm outstretched in the infamous Fascist salute.

Interesting how these very same leftists feign contempt and outrage whenever conservative pundits invoke similar imagery from the time of the Second World War.

It is claimed that that period’s loss of life was so overwhelming that it ought to only be referred to in connection to itself and must not be cheapened by using such horrors as a basis for other historical or political comparisons.

Even more worthy of reference is the accompanying caption insisting that Donald Trump’s slogan is “Make America White Again”.

The candidate said nothing of the sort.

All Trump threatened to do is to enforce existing immigration laws and to implement a number of possible security measures to keep out those not coming here in compliance with established procedures and those intent upon harming the nation.

If the editors of New Politics construe the phrase “Make America Great Again” as “Make America White Again”, aren’t these intellectuals the ones insinuating that, without a White majority, America won’t likely be able to retain its preeminence in the world or standard of living.

Even if Trump did run on a platform of making America White again (which he is not), how is such an aspiration any worse than the desire of Ray Nagin to keep New Orleans as a “Chocolate City” as he enunciated during his tenure as that metropolis’ corrupt executive?

How is making America White again as a rallying point of a campaign anymore outrageous than activists that lament “gentrification”, a fancy way of saying its better off for inner cities to remain in a state of decay than for them to become inhabited by an infestation of White interlopers desiring to reside there for whatever reasons.

By Frederick Meekins

Obama Invokes Military To Conceal His Own Incompetence

In his speech at the Democratic National Convention, President Obama said, “Donald Trump calls our military a disaster.”

By this, the President meant that Donald Trump was directly attacking the men and women that comprise the armed forces of the United States.

As formidable and impressive as they are, in a constitutional republic they only do as ordered by the elected civilian leadership.

In his remarks, what President Obama did was deflect the necessary critical analysis of his own lackluster leadership.

For it was not the frontline infantryman that authorized the premature withdrawal from Iraq.

It was not the humble field medic tending the wounds of a fellow soldier mutilated by an improvised explosive device that authorized resources to provide “gender reassignment procedures”.

Nor was it an MP standing guard that decided that the attack on Fort Hood was merely an incident of workplace violence that did not quite rise to the level of terrorism.

In the very same paragraph, the President continued, “He cozies up to Putin, praises Saddam Hussein, and tells the NATO allies…that they have to pay up if they want our protection. Well, America’s promises do not come with a price tag.”

It seems that nothing ever does with this financial profligate.

It is said that freedom isn’t free.

Often that is thought of in terms of the sacrifices made by those protecting the nation and its people.

The statement can also be taken literally.

The fielding of armies does not come cheap.

Ultimately those equipping and supplying these vast military forces are not doing so solely out of a sense of selfless altruistic patriotism.

Any shocked by such a remark need only be shown the invoice for a single fighter jet.

Why shouldn’t our so-called “allies” be expected to shoulder part of this expense?

After all, does not President Obama favor increasingly punitive taxation imposed upon the productive whom he eagerly reminded that they were not really the ones responsible for the enterprises, accomplishments, and achievements that they mistakenly assumed were their own?

If Donald Trump is on the record of speaking favorably of Vladimir Putin, how were his remarks anymore out of line than those articulated by prominent Democrats over the years?

For did not President Obama poopoo Mitt Romney last campaign cycle for viewing Russia as a strategic challenge rather than as a close alley?

Was not the comment that the 1980’s called and the decade wanted its foreign policy returned?

And during her own tenure as Secretary of State, was not Hillary Clinton the one that insisted she was the one that pushed the reset button for a closer relationship with Russia?

By Frederick Meekins

Technocrats Fret Hitler Quote Exposes Modus Operandi

A popular truism holds that those that don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

On the surface, that insightful observation might apply to those that know the factual details of history but refuse to embrace that field of study’s numerous object lessons.

However, for the aspiring tyrants, oligarchs, and elites eager to exert their control over a targeted population, it can be just as easy to censor and oppress those examples most likely to arouse suspicions those advocating nefarious agendas might otherwise prefer remain dormant.

Through the horrors of the Holocaust, the lives destroyed or ruined as a result of the Second World War, and the nightmarish curtailment of civil liberties that took place in Germany under the auspices of the Nazi Party’s, mere utterance of the name “Adolf Hitler” stops the discerning and reflective in their tracks to take stock of what is being said so that life and liberty might be preserved.

For what happened under the oversight of this particular dictator saw one of Europe’s most advanced nation’s transformed into one of the most brutal regimes this world has ever known.

Given the scope of the atrocities perpetrated during the Nazi era, the average person often concludes that this organization must have must have stormed into office with only the most brutal and violent of tactics that only the most courageous were willing to withstand.

And while these were always the stock and trade of the most diehard of Nazis, the movement was also able to warp for its own purposes those aspirations of the human heart towards which nearly all have a desire.

Some of the dicta propagated sounded disturbingly similar to the public service announcements of our own day.

In the attempt to draw attention to the subtle spiritual war waged at the worldview level, Life Savers Ministries sponsored an Alabama billboard that consisted of a picture of a group of children and two contrasting quotes.

One attributed to Adolf Hitler read, “He alone who owns the youth gains the future.”

The second from Proverbs 22:6 admonished, “Train up a child in the way he should go, even when he is old he will not depart from it.”

Put up on a Friday in June 2014, the billboard was taken down by the following Tuesday as a result of the ensuing hullabaloo.

The ministry’s founder was quoted in an account appearing in the Columbia Ledger Enquirer as responding, “We are pulling the billboard and actually never intended to cause confusion…Herbert Hoover would have been a far better one to quote when he said, ‘Children are our most valuable resource’. We are a children’s organization and had honorable intentions and nothing else.”

Granted, it is easy to cave when tolerancemongers are eager to rip out one’s throat (possibly even literally with the threats of violence such fanatics often make in the name of peace, understanding, and inclusion).

However, what this pastor or evangelist should have done is to use this incident as what President Obama would call a “teaching moment” when the Chief Executive desires to lecture the American people in an exceedingly condescending manner.

Glenn Beck’s yeoman’s efforts to the contrary in struggling to educate the population as to the dangers of 20th century Progressivism, but why doesn’t anyone get all exercised over this Herbert Hoover quote?

For shouldn’t those seeing this alternative quote get jacked out of shape over children being dehumanized to the level of a resource like coal or, in this era of mass legalization, industrial hemp?

A resource, after all, has no will of its own and little to no rights.

The purpose of a resource is to be shaped, utilized, and discarded by those to whom in belongs once the owner or those holding title to it see fit for their own benefit.

Perhaps failure to notice that is an indicator of just how conditioned many of us have become to the statist mindset. Such a concern is similar to that unsettled by how dangerously close our world in general and our country in particular are on the verge of mirroring the early days of Nazism.

Of course, at this point, we are not close to placing the assorted undesirables onto boxcars.

But there are signs all around that such a worst case scenario is not beyond the realm of plausibility.

Government agencies whose sole distasteful purpose is to simply and dispassionately collect revenue are use to suppress speech prevailing elites find distasteful.

Millions of the unborn are snuffed out as an inconvenience by those who apparently didn’t find it inconvenient to find the time for the carnal pursuit through which new life is brought into existence.

Thousands concerned over the revolutions in morality and lifestyle remain silent for fear of an act as innocent as a donation to a perfectly legal organization could one day be used against them as grounds for terminating employment.

Swarms of supposedly “youthful” foreigners are detained for who knows how long in government warehouses because a militarized or enclosed border is supposedly less humane.

By contrasting the rhetorical similarities between the Book of Proverbs (a source of world religion’s most profound wisdom) and Adolf Hitler (a personification of fallen man in his most unredeemed states), one is forced to confront the two basic paths a child can be led down as they make their way towards their eternal destination.

Parenting is not a spectator sport.

Like it or not, the soul of each child will end up in the hands of one of the two great forces waging war for the ultimate allegiance of mankind.

Without a doubt, once in Satan’s grasp, though not an impossibility to be freed by the infinite compassion of the works of Christ’s death upon the cross and His resurrection from the dead, it becomes all the more harder and complex for the individual to accept this free gift of salvation there for the asking.

By Frederick Meekins