Apr 12

Stealing America

By Kenneth Feucht books 1 Comment »

StealingAmerica

Stealing America, by Dinesh D’Souza ★★★★

This book is actually two narratives. The first narrative regards Dinesh’s stay for 8 months in an overnight retention facility, and the sentencing that led to that retention. Each chapter has stories from his sentencing or life in the confinement center. The second narrative spring-boards from the first narrative, in identifying how the US government is operating in an increasingly criminal fashion, akin to the hardened criminals that Dinesh met while at the detention facility.

The first chapter speaks of Dinesh being caught for a crime that seemed somewhat insignificant and something that is performed all the time, but felony charges are avoided because high profile people are aware of the minor technicalities in helping one avoid the label of “crime” to the “mis-deed”. Dinesh accidentally gave beyond donation limits by giving to a candidate through friends. He could have given massively larger funds through a PAC or other agency, but because he did what he did and had enemies, he was labeled a felon and ultimately condemned to 8 months in a confinement center, though avoiding up to 3 years of prison by paying his life earnings to a high profile lawyer. Having personally seen enough of the court systems, I can heartily agree with D’Souza that courts are a political sham; they are not blind, and justice is NEVER served in the courts. They are highly politically motivated by extremist liberal social justice warriors with an agenda. The myth of the American court system is screamed loud and hard in the sentencing of D’Souza.

Chapter two outlines the confinement center, a description of some of the people confined within the center. The description paints the guards and personnel that run the center as more pathological than the inmates. The criminals in the center, while they created heinous crimes (and oftentimes did not!), are described as less criminal than the people that run this country. The theme of “theft” and “stealing” is beginning to be developed in this chapter, where inmates may have performed robberies, but the grander robberies are daily performed in full public eye by our politicians.

The next few chapters begin to develop certain themes. These themes are based on the crimes that inmates committed, and how the politicians that run this country have the same pathological mindset as the inveterate criminals locked up behind bars. Gangsterism is one theme. Through their particular gangs (Republican or Democratic Parties), the once innocent politician goes from poverty to unbelievable wealth, which cannot be explained by their salary as a public servant. The reparations scam is another, where astronomical payouts to an undeserving dependent class of people are made even more dependent on the system, all under the guise of repaying groups for some hypothetical crime allegedly committed against their distant forefathers by people that have been dead for many generations. The greed and inequality scam is how the government feels it is their duty to level the playing field of inequality by the continual redistribution of wealth. The only wealth not redistributed is that of the leaders. Another scam is labeled the “You didn’t build that scam”, or as I would say, “it takes a village” scam. This supposes that you would never have been able to accomplish anything in life if it wasn’t for the government, failing to realize that the government would not have existed without yours and your forefather’s taxes being paid. The “you didn’t build it scam” give the government the permission to steal your earnings for redistribution.

D’Souza then switches gears and discusses the life of Saul Alinsky. Saul spent much time with Al Capone, learning first hand the art of gangsterism. This is relevant, because two characters, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both admittedly spent much time under the tutelage of Saul Alinsky, Clinton  writing her senior thesis on Alinsky, while Obama worked under him as a civic organizer. The criminal nature of Obama and Clinton are then both detailed.

The last two chapters bewail how America has been “stolen” from the people, and offering a solution as to how to crack the deception. He really doesn’t offer much, suggesting only that we need to restore the original America that did not steal from its citizens. I didn’t expect profound solutions from D’Souza, as he really doesn’t see the full impact of what has gone wrong with our nation.

There are some serious problems with the book. First, Dinesh identifies the “problem” as starting with Bill Clinton and exacerbated by the Bushes and Obama. In actual fact, the problems of corrupt government in the USA goes back to its founding, with founding fathers stacking the constitution in its own favor. I would identify progressivism as we know it as starting with Teddy Roosevelt and ultimately “losing it” with Woodrow Wilson. We are simply seeing the end result of a 100 years of deterioration in our government, making it unrecognizable should any of the founding fathers return from the dead. The second problem with the book is that Dinesh tends to think the problem of a stolen America to be primarily a Democrat problem. In actual fact, as recent events have shown quite clearly, the Republican party is way too similar to the Democratic party, and their politics tend to differ less than the politicians would like us to think. The Democratic Party is not the only criminal gang, but there are two criminal rival gangs fighting for preeminence on the public stage. As a side issue to the Republican party, D’Souza gives inordinate praise to president Lincoln, a man worthy of praise, but omits that he, more than any other president before him, established an uncontrollably powerful central government, much to our loss and giving rise to all of the problems D’Souza wails on in his book. By decentralizing government, empowering states and empowering the 10th amendment, reducing taxation and eliminating unwanted tariffs, Lincoln could have both abolished slavery and preserved the union without a war. The third problem is that D’Souza was affected by a wantonly corrupt court system in bed with the reigning politicians. Yet, he really doesn’t grasp the entire nature of how and why our court systems no longer administer justice or freedom. I am a little astounded as to why he is so blind to this issue. The fourth problem affects Dinesh as much as the country and that is a loss of faith. Dinesh fails to ever bring out that the primary reason America has gone the way it has, is that there is no longer a Christian morality, a Christian ethos, or a Christian faith in America. Dinesh, through his past divorce, seems to have somehow lost it himself. True, he still identifies as a Christian, but this book would leave you thinking that he only has a Christian gloss; there is nothing in this book that conveys a serious Christian mindset. By that, I mean a mindset that holds God in control of the universe, in control of politics, and a moral God that will judge the sins of the nation. His morality seems to be a morality that is entirely utilitarian in its function to maintain a civil society. This is not the morality of Scripture. I dearly hope that D’Souza will some day soon come to the realization of the problems above and write a book that can encompass a true reckoning of the spiritual and political state of affairs of our nation.

The book is a depressing book. It’s not that I’ve learned something new in the book. It’s that it’s all been reinforced from a person that tended to be very optimistic about our political system and the fruits of that political system. What’s most depressing is to grasp at how few people in America realize that we are a country that has gone off the cliff and is in free-fall without a parachute. People quibbling over whether Sanders or Hillary or Cruz gets the presidency are like kids playing on the deck of the Titanic during its final hours—”the boat’s going down children, and it isn’t worth haggling over whether Suzy stepped on the line in the hopscotch game”.

Tagged with:
1 Comment »
Apr 06

BeckIslam

It is About Islam, by Glenn Beck ★★

I’ve read several other books by Glenn Beck, and have disliked them, feeling that Beck writes in a superficial fashion, selling himself as a thoughtful analyst of modern thought, yet writing in a popular emotional, non-analytical mode. The reviews of this books suggested that it was different and that Beck had provided an essay that was competent in reviewing Muslim mindset and proposing thoughtful action. I was quite disappointed in my expectations. Beck is able to throw a mountain of facts and quotes at you regarding a subject, but his ability to condense those facts into meaningful discourse is lacking

The book is broken up into three parts. The first is a brief history of Islam. This was short and focused on Beck’s agenda in the book. The second part is an argument against 13 deadly lies of Islam, such as “Islam is not much different than Christianity or Judaism”. He offers quotes supporting the “lie”, and then refutes those “lies” with facts. The third portion of the book discusses action items.  All three sections of the book are weak, and perhaps they are weak because Beck has a tenuous starting point himself.

Beck is quite spirited in developing the idea that the Islam religion is a religion of hate, and out to conquer the world. There is probably a reasonable amount of truth in that statement. His action points include the following. 1. Understand the “enemy”. Correct. That’s why he wrote this book. 2. Don’t be afraid to speak. Sure, but when somebody like Donald Trump speaks strongly about dealing with Islam, you condemn them. Go figure. 3. Know yourself and your traditions. Fair deal, but what traditions are he talking about. In this section, he simply waxes further about the problems of Islam immigration into the US. 4. We cannot reform Islam – only Muslims can do that. But, that’s not an action point. And, the thesis of the book was that Islam is a religion of violence. So, essentially, the plea is for Muslims to quit being Muslim. Sure. Hell will freeze over before that happens spontaneously.

Beck has a serious problem refuting the Islam religion because he doesn’t understand the nature of Muslim theology, and how it differs from his own. As a Mormon, he belongs to a Christian heresy just as the Muslim religion is a Christian heresy.  Though Mormonism is not so violent as the Muslims are, it has occasionally engaged in quite violent acts in the name of their religion. It would be impossible for Beck to compare and contrast Muslim vs Christian theology, since Mormonism is as far from Christian theology as the Muslim faith is from Christian theology. He couldn’t possibly discuss comparisons of salvation by works versus salvation by faith in Christ, since Mormonism is salvation by works, just as the Muslim faith is salvation by works, hoping in the end that God just might look favorably on you.

So, I can’t recommend this book at all. There are other books about Islam, notably books by Nabeel Qureshi such as “Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus”that are actually worth reading. And, there are others. Don’t waste your money or time on this book. I should have known better.

 

Tagged with:
1 Comment »
Apr 01

GrandmaGatewood

Grandma Gatgewood’s Walk, By Ben Montgomery ★★★★

This is a true and fascinating tale about a woman who married a very abusive man, had 11 children, and after her husband left her and the children grew up, she notified her children that she would be going for a walk. The year was 1955 and she was 67 years old. They had known their mother to occasionally disappear for a period of time, and so thought nothing of it. Eventually, she made it know to her family and the world as to what she was up to. She had decided to walk the entire length of the Appalachian Trail from Georgia to Maine. To allow that, she wore nothing but sneakers, some rummage sale walking clothes, and sewed herself a burlap sack to carry her scarce belongings, which she threw over her shoulder. She had a walking stick, an extra pair of glasses, since she was nearly blind, a blanket, and a large sheet of plastic to serve as a rain coat and shelter in the event that she could not find natural coverage from the rain. Her hike went from May until September, interrupted only by nosy and inquisitive news agents, and then, only once she was discovered as to what she was up to. It was a year of major east coast hurricane activity, so much of her northerly walk was drenched in rain and mud, and swollen rivers. She eventually made it to the tip of Katahdin, the northernmost part of the AT.

The story is broken up with three different dialogues. The most important was that of her actual walk, which was reconstructed from the notes that she took and the correspondence that she sent to her children. The second dialogue was flashbacks on her early life, going from childhood, to marriage, to a seriously flawed family life with a very physically abusive husband, 11 children, and much coping. Eventually she got a divorce, her children grew up, and she found herself alone, only to find her greatest enjoyment in walking. The third dialogue was discussion of the history of the Appalachian Trail, discussion of issues of the ecology of the trail, and the loss of a wild area.

The book is inspiring. It makes one wish to get out to walk. It is an easy but compelling read, hard to set down until the end. It was easy to follow the story lines in spite of the fact that they were broken up.

Since then, Grandma Emma Gatewood again did the AT a second time, becoming the first woman to ever hike the AT and the first person to ever hike it twice. She also section hiked it a third time, as well as walked from Independence, MO to Portland, OR following the route of the Oregon Trail. She did this while she was in her 70’s.

There is interesting discussion in the book about hospitality shown to her as well as mistreatment on her trip along the trail. Perhaps the book implies that people with crazy ideas need to be catered to.  Even in the 1950’s, most people that looked like “homeless tramps” were alcoholic, irresponsible persons. Grandma Gatewood was not alcoholic, but certainly expected assistance and handouts as well as shelter along the way. She could not possibly have done the trail in an entirely self-supported fashion, making her at least somewhat irresponsible. Yet, the book is still a good admonishment to show hospitality to strangers.

The book is labelled a New York Times best-seller. Like all labels of this sort, such as being a Pulitzer prize winning book or Oprah Winfrey book of the month club book, the label usually persuades me not to read the book. This book mostly stayed clear of political issues, but they could still be seen. As an example, the author spends much time speaking of the racial inequalities, and political machinations that transpired during the 1950’s. He happens to briefly mention the Republicans (never the Democrats) as associated with the segregation movement, without mentioning that the overwhelming majority of segregationists were Democrat. It is almost like taking the movie “Pirates of the Caribbean” as reflective or based on history. In the Pirates movie, the pirates were the Spanish and the folk being robbed were the British. In real life, it was just the opposite. It’s as though history some day would have the Americans as killing off the Jews, with Hitler coming to rescue the Jews from a holocaust. New Yorkers, in their sophisticated sophistry, so often just get it completely wrong. Oh well. Read the book. Laugh about the historical or political mistakes. But get inspired to walk a long walk.

Tagged with:
No Comments »
Mar 19

Slow&Steady

Slow and Steady: Hiking the Appalachian Trail, by Robert A. Callaway ★

I read this book because the title and summary had appeal to me. I was contemplating a long thru-hike. The author was a physician like me. The author was about my age. And the author considering doing the hike with his younger brother, like me. Everything else is different.

I reality, this must be the worst account I’ve ever read of thru-hiking a long trail. I’ve read many accounts of both the AT and PCT, and this really is the worst account I’ve ever come across. In essence, it is how Robert managed to jamb approximately 80 separate 1-3 day hikes into one long season that ultimately covered the Appalachian Trail. His brother dropped out be fore he made it half way. He stayed in hotels roughly 30% of the time. His down days were massive. Only once did he do 20 miles. He admitted to becoming a bit more sociable in the conduct of the hike. His manner of hiking was horrid, like any Obama liberal (which he took time off during the hike to vote for). He shuttled two automobiles throughout the entire Trail, leap-frogging them along the way to get where he was going. Environmentally, I went apoplectic, thinking about the volume of exhaust and “global warming” Bobbie generated by his venture. In my book, it would be the worst way imaginable to complete a trail. He did accurately describe the trail as a trail for socialites—not exactly the reason why one goes into the woods.

On any hiking adventure, one must HYOH (hike your own hike). Bobbie indeed did that. The book was such a bore and so un-like I would imagine doing any thru-hike, that I would not even offer this to my brother, with whom I plan on hiking the PCT in several years. As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t recommend this book to anybody unless you personally know Dr. Callaway and just wish a chronicle of his bizarre journey.

Tagged with:
No Comments »
Mar 12

24FEB2016

The campaign season is now in full force, and opinions flow freely about who will be our next emperor. The news media is quite busy at their subtle but fake “unbiased” spin as to who would be best.

Even Ron Paul, whom I voted for the last four elections, offers his opinion in which no candidate merits his support. This is all fine and dandy, save that some candidates are the “lesser of evils”, a write-in or blank vote will be worthless, and there is a sense in which some candidates would be truly intolerable. Thus, Ron Paul playing ostrich will not work in this election cycle for presidency.

The press has taken another stance. Headlines speak of “angry voters going for Trump”. Does the press really believe that Trump fans are more angry than Col. Sanders fans or Cruz fans? Do they interpret any sort of cool-headed rejection of the Republicrat Party as anger? How many buildings have angry Trump supporters destroyed, how many cars have been destroyed or street riots engendered with much human bodily injury?  If the press would like to see real anger, try revisiting Ferguson or Baltimore.

There is the milquetoast mass who would vote for Hillarious or Rubio, and certainly the press and Republican National committee seem to make Rubio the clear-cut choice for the Republican nominee, and the DNC and press with Hillarious for Democratic nominee. This is the New York Times stance. Why would I take advice from the most liberal rag in America that intends to indoctrinate the American public?

Fear mongering has been the approach of both Republicans and Democrats. Special interests drive select candidates, as the Feminazi influence in advocating for Hillarious. The press would like us to believe that Trump appeals to the less intelligent and under-educated masses, based on a comment by Trump that the less educated masses love him. The logic of concluding that his statement that “ONLY” the uneducated masses love him defies my sane reasoning.

So, I march through the available candidates for president looking at the pros and cons for each of the active candidates. I left out Vermin Supreme, but then, I decided that I really have no use for a free pony (google or u-tube search Vermin Supreme if you have no clue as to what I’m talking about).

Hillarious:
Con:
1. She’s an inveterate liar and never to be trusted.
2. She’s a war monger who will get us worse into war than Obama has done. We will probably see conflict with either China or Russia during the reign of Empress Hillarious.
3. She’s a part of the established Republicrat regime, and would continue business as usual.
4. We don’t need a Clinton dynasty. They’ve done enough trouble while Billy was in office. I don’t forget the lengthy list of scandals and offenses that occurred during his reign, many with Hillarious in collusion.
5. She has poor health and she is old, benefited only by massive use of make-up. Her VP would probably soon be president.
6. She is allied to too many special interests, such as the Feminazi interests, the gay/lesbian/trans-sexual interests, etc., Goldman Sachs and Wall Street, for a short list.
7. I don’t want a lesbian as president.
Pro:
Absolutely none

Col. Sanders
Con:
1. A socialist by any name is still a socialist. The banks are already teetering to unmitigated collapse, though we don’t know when. The Colonel will only accelerate that ultimate collapse.
2. He’s a fake. He could have voted his heart and supported the audit of the fed bill in the senate, but did not. I don’t trust him.
3. He is really old. I suspect that he is also partially senile. We’ll have a situation like the end of the Woodrow Wilson years, where a presidential advisor essentially runs the nation.
4. His solutions never have a basis is serious reality, whether it be economic solutions, public policy solutions, or foreign policy solutions.
5. His past life was miserably anti-American, which he needs to make account for.
6. The guy was a useless parasite on society before he got into politics, not even holding a job until he was 40 years old. He would remain a useless parasite if he became president.
Pro:
1. He sees the problem of America’s monetary system, and wants to do something about it. He clearly sees the corrupt banking system, the problem of the Federal Reserve, and how Wall Street is about as anti-American as ISIS or Obama.
2. He seems to have a shred of integrity.

Ben Carson
Con:
1. He has minimal familiarity with politics. He would be a lamb among wolves.
2. He doesn’t have a “leadership” persona.
3. He would involve America in war in other countries.
4. He hasn’t expressed a comprehensive stand on many matters of concern.
5. He would not make a great president but would  otherwise be fantastic in Washington on whoever’s cabinet.
Pro:
1. He is probably the smartest candidate, Republican or Democrat. Honestly, he is frankly brilliant.
2. He is  Negro and unlike our current “black-white Mulato” president, and so would very certainly start bringing a correction to race issues in the USA.
3. His integrity and morality are completely impeccable, regardless of accusations of his opponents and the press.
4. He stands first among all the candidates in being a gentleman and man of honor.

Marco Rubio
Con:
1. He would perpetuate and exacerbate the current immigration problem. He would do a terrible job with America’s borders.
2. He tends to be a “company man”, and would march to the beat of the Republicrat regime. It would mean politics as usual.
3. His policies are pseudo-conservative. This might garner liberal votes, but then, if one wishes to vote liberal, feel the Bern.
4. His public persona is awful. He looks like a little kid. He is nigh brain dead in his speeches. He will need a teleprompter just like the Bummer.
Pro:
1. This is a tough one, but he does have some conservative leanings regarding economic issues.
2. He has a reasonable morality. I find it odd that so many presidential candidates come to Jesus during the campaign year, making professions of faith that they could have said before hand but strangely did not.
3. He clearly sees that our current president is super-bad. I think he repeated that 4 times in a recent debate.

Ted Cruz
Con:
1. His public persona is horrible.
2. He doesn’t do the best job at selecting the people around him, a good example being his campaign manager
3. His policy stances regarding foreign wars, economics, domestic issues are weak.
4. If running against either of the democratic candidates, he will lose. The press will make mince meat of him.
5. He would make an absolutely superb Supreme court justice.
Pro:
1. He has good, solid policies on many issues, especially regarding immigration/border issues.
2. In spite of what the press and RNC tried to do to smear him, he is a man of integrity.
3. He is willing to stand up for what is right and speak out when there is a wrong or an injustice, even if it may mean political harm. His action of calling many of the lead Republicans liars was both truthful and proper.

Donald Trump
Con:
1. He is a novice in politics
2. He seems to be taking strong stances and expressing opinions which are often contrary to what he was saying just a few years ago. True, even President Reagan was originally a liberal, but Trump has not had the time to prove to the public that he really has mended his ways and thinking.
3. He has every reason to be self-serving as president.
4. He has a terrible grasp on the constitution. He will approach his job (similar to Obama) more as Führer than as a constitutional president.
5.  If elected president, there is a high chance that some liberal nitwit will assassinate him. (some people might put this in the “Pro” column).
Pro:
1. The press and established Republican Regime hate him, which means he is probably all right.
2. You usually don’t need to worry about him speaking his mind.
3. He seems to be the most outspoken about standing up for USA interests
4. He will not get us involved in crazy and expensive foreign wars without assuring ourselves a benefit from those wars.
5. He is the most clear about fixing the immigration issues. Above all, he understands that “illegal” in the phrase “illegal alien” does not mean anything but the plain reading of the words. It certainly does NOT mean undocumented workers.
6. He has some grasp of economics and would probably look out for the “little guy” in business.
7. He is VERY clear on other important issues, such as terminating ObamaCare as soon as he gets into office.
8. He’ll have Hillarious behind bars, where she belongs.
9. From his life in the business world, I suspect that he would be adept at recruiting competent men around him.
10. He generates very strong reactions from many of my friends about how dangerous he would be as president, accusing him of being a chameleon that will be a different color in office. I interpret those strong reactions (from even the friends that I trust) as all the more reason to vote for him. I find it intriguing that such notable characters as Pat Buchanan (whose opinions I always respect) and Ann Coulter (who I tend to agree with even though I detest her persona, and besides, she’s a damn lawyer), and Alex Jones (a very strange character but who usually gets it right) are all in favor of Trump (at least, at this time).
11. He is not a lawyer. We need a government with more people than just lawyers and political science majors. Lawyers and political scientists have the worst grasp on truth of anybody I know, and which I always count as a strike against them.

I’m sure this list will grow and change over the next few months. You might have noticed that I have not opted in favor of any candidate. Your notice is correct. You might have noticed that I also have some political leanings for this election. That is also correct. I remain moderately undecided at this point. If you wish to change my mind, don’t waste your time, as I’ll probably vote for somebody else just because you tried to persuade me otherwise.

Of course, some of my friends will bring up the question as to whether the candidate is a Christian. I would remind them that I have some very dear (but politically brain dead) friends who lauded Obama for being a Christian. I remember liking Jimmy Carter because he was “born-again”, and what a colossal mistake he was of a president. Our last great president that generally stood for Christian values was Reagan, but he came under attack for his lack of Christian faith. Meanwhile, the Bush clan were lauded as Christians, yet I have serious questions about their integrity and self-serving expectations while in office. I am reminded of the Cromwell regime in England, which stacked the parliament with Christians, but who were incompetent at running a country.

So, I now offer a serious question. Does America deserve a good president? Perhaps not. I see no candidate that will make king Hezekiah or king Josiah style reforms to correct public sins and evil, and foster a more righteous nation. Ultimately, is this not the ONLY thing that matters? Making America great is a matter of making America Christianly moral. But, returning to a biblical foundation will not happen because not even most Christians have a clue as to what that is. Why do so many Christians (like the current Pope Francis) view socialism as a form of Christianity by doing good to the poor? Are they so foolish as to imagine that goodness can be forced and delegated by an evil government? Judgement on our nation looms, and Christians need to get off their Pollyannish pie-in-the-sky-in-the-sweet-by-and-by mentality that God still loves America, and that other countries might be bad, but at least we are not as evil as Russia or China. Just see what Habakkuk says… (You who are of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look at wrong, why do you idly look at traitors and remain silent when the wicked swallows up the man more righteous than he? Hab 1:13)

Perhaps Christians wish for more social justice. God’s law specifically forbids judgements in favor of “the poor” just because they are poor (“You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice, nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit” Exo 23:2,3). A strong sense regarding personal ownership of property and goods must not be viewed as being evil, but the wish to re-distribute the goods of “the rich” as being very evil (You shall not covet-10th commandment, Exo 20:17).

Our current president has accelerated the process of wickedness in our nation. We are far worse now in being racially divided. We no longer grasp that having a penis means that you are male, regardless of your feelings on the subject. The gay/lesbian/trans-sexual/confused-sexuality agenda has flourished under our current Nobel peace prize gay bath-house visiting “Christian” president. Social programs have removed any moral responsibility from people, so that any sexual, economic, or behavioral issue might get you time behind bars or in the Krankenhaus, but will not result in you suffering the full impact of your inappropriate behaviors. We no longer fear the influx of foreign gods, including Buddhism, the Muslim “god”, Satanism in its various forms, and the god of mammon. The Scriptures are not silent on this. (Beware lest you say in your heart, ‘My power and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth.  You shall remember the Lord your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your fathers, as it is this day. And if you forget the Lord your God and go after other gods and serve them and worship them, I solemnly warn you today that you shall surely perish. Like the nations that the Lord makes to perish before you, so shall you perish, because you would not obey the voice of the Lord your God Deut 8:17).

So, my action items are as follows.
1. Pray. God is in ultimate control of everything. Remember that Obama was ordained by God (it doesn’t mean that God loves Obama! Contrary, God truly hates Obama!).
2. Stand up for what is right. Work for a crisis pregnancy center that offers alternatives to abortion. Refuse to patronize businesses that cater to the gay/lesbian/trans agenda (including the YMCA). Speak your mind for truth. Don’t be ashamed that you are a Christian. Go to a real church. Not a feel good, “Jesus loves you, come as you are” “Get in touch with the real-you”, self-empowerment church, but a real church.
3. Quit thinking that God loves America. He doesn’t. Quit thinking that America is a Christian country. It might have been at one time, but it sure is not now. Quit thinking that most Americans that say they are Christian are Christian. Do they truly understand God’s laws, and seek to live by them? (As a father shows compassion to his children, so the Lord shows compassion to those who fear him. But the steadfast love of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear him, and his righteousness to children’s children, to those who keep his covenant and remember to do his commandments Ps 103:13, 17,18). Do you erroneously consider the Older Testament as obsolete and replaced by “grace” under Jesus? Are we all Marcionites now? Are there two different gods in the bible, the old testament and new testament gods? Or did God announce through Jesus that he was just kidding, and really will not be imposing a harsh moral law on mankind from Jesus on out? Do you realize that all of America is enemy territory, the worst being many “conservative” American Christian churches?
4. Pay close attention to practicing a personal morality. It really does matter. Don’t complain when God’s judgement hits, if you are not personally walking with God, and remembering to keep His covenant. Do you encourage your neighbor to seek a biblical faith.
5. Let Scripture alone rule as your moral guide. Memorize it. Start with Ps. 1 and Ps. 2. Psalm 1 is a summary for the entire Scripture regarding the need for personal morality. Psalm 2 is a summary for the entire Scripture regarding God’s ideas regarding politics. They are eternal inviolate truths.
6. Refuse to vote for the status quo. If you do vote, trust that God will establish the perfect person for America. It will probably NOT be the person you wanted to be president.
7. Remember that over ½ of Americans voted for Obama twice over. If you think that our country truly wants what is right and good, you are living under a massive delusion.

Thanks for hearing out my rant.

Though the fig tree should not blossom,
nor fruit be on the vines,
the produce of the olive fail
and the fields yield no food,
the flock be cut off from the fold
and there be no herd in the stalls,
yet I will rejoice in the Lord;
I will take joy in the God of my salvation.
God, the Lord, is my strength;
he makes my feet like the deer’s;
he makes me tread on my high places. Hab. 3:17-19

All Bible quotes in this blog were taken from the English Standard Version, complements to some of my friends who participated in this translation.

 

ADDENDUM: 28FEB2016

You might have noticed that I did not review Kasich. The simple reason is that I have nothing to say about him. I won’t move out of the USA if he becomes president, but I view him as a weak liberal.

I am feeling that Trump is shooting himself with his mouth. I am becoming increasingly concerned about him being president. He will be a better alternative that Col. Sanders or Hillarious, but feel that it would be very risky voting for him as president. I’ve also appreciated Ted Cruz more as time goes on. He’s a sharp cookie, even though he is a lawyer. If I had to vote tomorrow, it would probably be for Cruz. Who knows who my next addendum will prefer? I’ll be glad when the Republican and Democratic conventions are over with. Who knows if there will be a third party candidate? We wait in prayer that God will show at least a modicum of his steadfast love on the USA as a country, that his wrath not be too severe.

 

ADDENNDUM: 12MAR2016

I’m seeing why it was a good reason not to cast my vote firmly. Events of the past few weeks have changed my mind. Issues that have developed with Cruz.

  1. He selected Neal Bush to be on his financial staff. Why in the Sam Hill did he do this? Is he trying to get in good through the back door with the established politicians that we have learned to so thoroughly despise? Wasn’t it Neal that was involved criminally in the Savings and Loan disruption many years ago?
  2. Cruz is throwing unnecessary mud at other candidates, suggesting that he is desperate; not a good trait for a president. He now accuses Trump of stirring up the crowds. But, the crowds stirred up are the worthless chronic parasitic students, Negros, of Chicago. Get out the Kleenex. Like spoiled children, it’s time somebody told them off. Cruz cannot let go of his establishment mentality.
  3. Cruz has some very strange “magical” concepts of Christianity. The Lord told him that he would be King in America, according to his father. I don’t mind Pentecostalism, but they sometimes have the worst approach to truth.
  4. Cruz would make a good attorney general, but an awful president.

What about Trump?

  1. He has shown that he can behave and be presidential.
  2. He pisses off the liberals. Good. Hopefully, he’ll put some of those sorry asses back to real work. Hopefully, he’ll terminate half the funding to colleges, so that we don’t produce yet another generation of totally useless BS’s and BA’s, trained in gender studies, political science, environmental studies, racial studies, or law.
  3. He pisses off neocon conservatives. Good. They can keep their little playacting at party meetings, but they are just as criminal at bringing collapse to America as the liberals. The neocon arguments are ridiculous, and without substance. His hair. He looks haughty (like Hillary, Rubio, and others don’t???). He’ll get us into war (really now, are you so deaf that you can’t hear what Trump has said a million times—if we go to war (ever), THEY will pay!!!)
  4. He is acquiring more and more people that like him. My favorite candidate (above) in terms or morality and wisdom and personality was Carson, and Carson threw his towel in with Trump. The liberal neocon right simply can’t bear that, and are now coming down hard on Carson for stupidity. They lack a mirror. Phyllis Schafly has supported Trump. There are many others that are coming out.
  5. I actually ventured onto Trump’s website, prompted by the baby-ass crying neocons. I reviewed his policy statements. I agree with nearly every one of them, such as his foreign policy (except for his involvement in the South China Sea – we don’t belong there), economic issues, education (he’s listening to Carson! on that one), healthcare reform (abolish ObamaCare), immigration reform, tax reform, eliminating the death tax, and second amendment rights. I love his idea to make concealed carry permits applicable across state lines, like driver’s licenses. There’s almost nothing that I disagree with. Plus, and most importantly, he promised to put Hillary in prison. I hope that he also tries Obama for treason, makes illegitimate all of his actions as president, puts half the Supreme Court before the firing squad for treason, hangs Loretta Lynch for treason, and fires half of everybody in government.

So, I’m not totally committed but would vote for Trump if the ballot was given to me today. This has not been a good election cycle. The worst thing is not who the candidates are, but how the professional politicians of all stripes are responding to the election that isn’t going their way. They are working too hard to protect their own comfortable turf. Because of that, I dearly hope that whoever gets into office removes any retirement benefits for congress and presidents. They don’t deserve it. They get enough already in other royalties. I dearly hope that a law is passed that makes that forces congress and executive office members to live by the same laws that we have to live by. We are not supposed to have a class of royalty. Let’s get rid of them!

 

Tagged with:
4 Comments »
preload preload preload