Can a Christian Vote for Anyone?

Does the Bible give us direction for whom we should vote?

Of course key here is whether or not one believes the Bible is the inerrant, infallible, inspired, authoritative Word of God. Or is the Bible just a helpful book. Or perhaps it is a book irrelevant for life and living in our day.

The first means you prayerfully live by the Bible every day with the direction of the Holy Spirit which indwells every true Christian.

The second means you do what you want to do without real concern for what the Bible really directs.

In 1982 “under the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, in a Joint Resolution, both the United States Senate and House of Representatives declared 1983-The Year of the Bible (italics mine).”[1]

Today both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are in steep spiritual and biblical decline.

So, back to the question at hand, “can a Christian vote for anyone they choose?”

While the Bible doesn’t address America’s political system directly, it does give clear direction in this matter. So let’s see what God’s Word says.

Ephesians 5 tells us to “let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience (v6; NASB).”

What are empty words? Empty words are words spoken without belief or intent–lies. It is the case that the person has no intent upon acting on them—indeed they may do the opposite!

How do we discern whether a man’s words are empty?

It is not what a man says, that should tell us who he is, rather is past and present actions. Can a man or woman change—certainly?

An example may be useful here.

Ronald Reagan was a liberal Democrat. Not just someone who voted Democrat. He was a very active member heading committees and fighting against conservatives.

But he didn’t flip-flop all of a sudden and run for President. It was well over a decade before he ran for POTUS.

If someone has been politically active we can look at their voting record along with their rhetoric; has it been consistent?

For someone “new” to the political arena you can look at the actions in their business and who and what they have supported politically in the past.

In 2008 this country made a huge mistake by electing Obama. A secretive man—an interloper from Kenya, who was born to a Muslim father and whose stepfather was also Muslim.

A child born a Muslim leaves Islam only under the threat of death.

Even some very liberal Democrats are seeing the error of the Obama era.

But there are many Republican, RINO candidates on the “conservative” side that are more of the Washington cartel or who are interested more in their own agenda and power than righting the sinking ship of America.

This is our last chance; indeed I am not sure the train has not already left the station.

We have maybe one shot. Let’s not do an Obama error again.  

 

 

[1] D. D. Edwards, Before the Final Trump ( Bloomington, IN:Crossbooks, 2010), 22.

New Blog Post

Obama Alters U.S. Oath of Allegiance in Compliance with Islamic Law

Reblogged from Raymond Ibrahim on August 6, 2015

The Obama administration recently made changes to the Oath of Allegiance to the United States in a manner very conducive to Sharia, or Islamic law.

On July 21, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced some “modifications” to the Oath of Allegiance which immigrants must take before becoming naturalized.

The original oath required incoming citizens to declare that they will “bear arms on behalf of the United States” and “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States” when required by the law.

Now the USCIS says that “A candidate [to U.S. citizenship] may be eligible to exclude these two clauses based on religious training and belief or a conscientious objection.”

The new changes further add that new candidates “May be eligible for [additional?] modifications based on religious training and belief, or conscientious objection arising from a deeply held moral or ethical code.”

These changes serve incoming Islamic supremacists especially well.  For, while Islamic law allows Muslims to feign loyalty to non-Muslim “infidel” authorities, it bans Muslims from living up to the pretense by actually fighting or killing fellow Muslims on behalf of a non-Muslim entity, such as the United States.

The perfectly fitting story of Nidal Hassan—the U.S. army major and “observant Muslim who prayed daily” but then turned murderer—comes to mind and is illustrative.

A pious Muslim, Hasan seemed a “regular American,” even if he was leading a double life—American Army major and psychiatrist by day, financial supporter of jihadi groups and associate of terrorists by night.  However, when time came for this American soldier to “bear arms on behalf of the United States”—to quote the original Oath of Allegiance—against fellow Muslims, things got ugly: he went on a shooting spree in Fort Hood, killing thirteen Americans, including one pregnant woman in 2009.

Much of Hasan’s behavior is grounded in the Islamic doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity.  According to this essential teaching, Muslims must always be loyal to Islam and fellow Muslims while having enmity for all non-Islamic things and persons.

However, whenever Muslims find themselves under the authority of non-Islamic institutions and persons, they are permitted to feign loyalty—even to the point of cursing Islam and pretending to have abandoned it—with one caveat: Muslims must never take up arms on behalf of “infidels” against fellow Muslims.  In other words, their loyalty to non-Muslims must be skin deep.

Many are the verses in the Koran that support this divisive doctrine (3:28, 4:89, 4:144, 9:23, and 58:22; the latter simply states that true Muslims do not befriend non-Muslims—“even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin”).

Most germane is Koran 3:28: “Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels rather than believers: and whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.”

The words translated here as “guard” and “precaution” are derived from the Arabic word taqu, from the trilateral root w-q-y—the same root that gives us the word taqiyya, the Islamic doctrine that permits Muslims to deceive non-Muslims whenever under their authority.

Ibn Kathir (d. 1373), author of one of the most authoritative commentaries on the Koran, explains taqiyya in the context of verse 3:28 as follows: “Whoever at any time or place fears … evil [from non-Muslims] may protect himself through outward show.”  As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad’s close companion Abu Darda, who said, “Let us grin in the face of some people while our hearts curse them.”[1]

Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari (d. 923), author of another standard commentary on the Koran, interprets verse 3:28 as follows:

If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them … [know that] God has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers—except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.[2]

And therein lies the limit of taqiyya: when the deceit, the charade begins to endanger the lives of fellow Muslims—whom, as we have seen, deserve first loyalty—it is forbidden. As al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri puts it in his treatise on Loyalty and Enmity, Muslims may pretend to be friendly and loyal to non-Muslims, so long as they do “not undertake any initiative to support them [non-Muslims], commit sin, or enable [them] through any deed or killing or fighting against Muslims” (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 75).

Thus the idea that Nidal Hasan might be deployed to a Muslim country (Iraq or Afghanistan) was his “worst nightmare.”   When he realized that he was about to be deployed, he became “very upset and angry.”  The thought that he might injure or kill Muslims “weighed heavily on him.” He also counseled a fellow Muslim not to join the U.S. Army, since “Muslims shouldn’t kill Muslims.”

Hassan is not the only Muslim to expose his disloyalty when pushed into fighting fellow Muslims on behalf of the United States.

Asked by the judge about his oath upon being sentenced for the attempted May 2010 Times Square car bombing, naturalized U.S. citizen Faisal Shahzad replied, “I sweared [sic], but I didn’t mean it.”

In 2010, Naser Abdo, another Muslim soldier who joined the U.S. Army, demanded to be discharged on the claim that he was a “conscientious objector whose devotion to Islam has suffered since he took an oath to defend the United States against all enemies.”  The army agreed, but while processing him, officials found child pornography on his government-issued computer and recommended that he be court-martialed.  Abdo went AWOL and later tried to carry out a terrorist attack on a restaurant with the use of weapons of mass destruction.

And in April 2005, another Muslim serving in the U.S. Army, Hasan Akbar, was convicted of murder for killing two American soldiers and wounding fourteen in a grenade attack in Kuwait: “He launched the attack because he was concerned U.S. troops would kill fellow Muslims in Iraq.”

In short, the first loyalty of any “American Muslim” who follows the Koran is to fellow Muslims, regardless of their nationality—and not to American “infidels,” even if they be their longtime neighbors whom they daily smiled to (see here for examples).  Hence why American Muslim Tarik Shah, who was arrested for terrorist-related charges, once boasted: “I could be joking and smiling [with non-Muslims] and then cutting their throats in the next second”—reminiscent of the aforementioned quote by Muhammad’s companion.

Now, in direct compliance with Islamic law, the Obama administration has made it so that no Muslim living in America need ever worry about having to defend her—including against fellow Muslims or jihadis.

Notes:

1. ‘Imad ad-Din Isma’il Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Karim (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiya, 2001), vol. 1, p. 350, author’s translation.

2. Abu Ja’far Muhammad at-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan ‘an ta’wil ayi’l-Qur’an al-Ma’ruf: Tafsir at-Tabari (Beirut: Dar Ihya’ at-Turath al-‘Arabi, 2001), vol. 3, p. 267, author’s translation.

Crush Depth – Part II

Uncharted Space

Jimmy Carter was America’s president and the year is 1979. Captain Kirk, Spock, Scotty, and Bones beamed up from television onto the silver screen with Star Trek the Movie. While Captain Kirk was engulfed with the really serious crisis of a malevolent cloud trying to destroy Earth; America, led by “Captain” Carter and his “big government intervention squad,” turned a problem into a catastrophe.

However, as the starship Enterprise journeyed “where no man had gone before,” so too oil prices, and inflation blasted upward into the Exosphere. And with Captain Carter and the BGI Squad on the job, interest rates, hit warp speed and rocketed into alien territory—where no man had gone before (or since)! Unfortunately, “Captain Carter” was not as successful as Captain Kirk; hence the U.S. economy was thrown into the black hole of a three-year recession.

Fast Forward

Twenty years hence, “in 1999, the global economy underwent a monumental shift . . . [that] promises to give rise to an inflationary era—the likes of which America has never before seen,” so says Dr. Stephen Leeb.[1] He continues, “this shift was probably the single most significant to occur since America abandoned the gold standard . . . even on Wall Street . . . [few] seem to be aware of this profound change—let alone understand the serious ramifications it is having on the global economy.”[2]

Once again, beginning in 2006, we began to see oil prices soar; up to $3.50 per gallon in some parts of the country by late 2007, Nevertheless, what is happening now with oil is not what was happening thirty years ago. No, this time it is much worse! While oil is once again on stage, the circumstances are markedly different.

This time oil is the chief underlying driver of both geopolitical and geo-economic global events. Unlike in the past, signs of future demand shortages are evident. Keystone supplies are waning and emerging nations like China and India have thrust 3.3 billion new “capitalists” onto the consumerism’s world arena. They are gobbling up TV sets, cell phones, computers, and graduating from bicycles to cars—and they want more.

Globalism and Globalization

The terms globalism and globalization sound harmless. Nonetheless, they are added fuel feeding the flames under an already bubbling cauldron.

Not to get ahead of ourselves we should define the terms. According to the Encarta online dictionary globalism is, “the belief or advocacy that political policies should take worldwide issues into account before focusing on national or state concerns.” In other words, America’s sovereignty is to take a back seat to “worldwide issues”; read United Nations.

Globalization on the other hand is, “to become adopted on a global scale, or cause something, especially social institutions, to become adopted on a global scale.” This is not Black Op Helicopter conspiracy theorism. Globalism is being propelled by a growing bloc of bureaucratic elitists. The impending threat of globalism is and will affect the world both politically and economically.

Unarguably, the economies of all countries are becoming ever more global. That is the world we live in. But how do globalists define globalism? According to Joseph Nye,[3] “Globalism, at its core, seeks to describe and explain nothing more than a world which is characterized by networks of connections that span multi-continental distances. . . . globalization refers to the increase or decline in the degree of globalism. It focuses on the forces, the dynamism or speed of these changes.”[4] The vexing problem for America is that to embrace globalism we must demolish the foundations and core convictions America was built on. In short, globalism ultimately requires we relinquish our national sovereignty and incinerate our founding documents on the altar of Globalism.

Globalism is not new. In 1907, President Woodrow Wilson declared:

Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process.[5]

President Eisenhower affirmed this mind-set in 1953, “a serious and explicit purpose of our foreign policy [is] the encouragement of a hospitable climate for investment in foreign nations.”[6]

Shadow Parties

Most American’s believe we basically have a two party system. Yes, there is the Libertarian party as well as the Republican and Democratic Parties; the three make up the chief registered, visible parties. But there is an undeclared, shadow party and no I am not talking about one of the radical extremist parties, like the Green party. I believe a large percentage of our politicians are “undeclared globalists.” It seems to be the case that the underlying dynamic driving globalists and globalism are elitist thirsting for power.

The Clintons (remember, we got two for one) ran, and were elected as Democrats; George W. Bush ran, and was elected as a Republican, but in fact they are different facets of the same stone. How was the country really governed in both instances? What America actually got were Globalists. The Clintons were and are Global Socialists/Marxists. Bush, on the other hand, is a Global Socialist/Capitalist. That may sound oxymorononic, but consider the facts. The U.S. government under Bush’s watch grew more than even under the Clinton regime, he has pushed for a North American Union, and has repeatedly pushed back against his constituents pleas to seal our borders.

Let me be clear, George Bush was, that is to say, George Bush is not a conservative; though that is why many of us voted for him—twice! Remember shortly after 911 George Bush stood on a pile of WTC rubble, his arm around a fireman and declared to America he would do whatever it took to fight terrorism. He would fight it wherever he found it—and not just terrorists, but all of those who fund or support terrorism.

Sadly, that has not been the case. Bush instead has fallen prey to both a metaphysical pluralism[7] and religious pluralism.[8] If Bush was really committed to those words, he would seal the borders for national security. He never did. So aliens of unknown origin and intentions flood through by the thousands daily.

Reflections

The analogy of the Thresher is an apt metaphor for the U.S. and the American Church. Like any analogy it is a broad-stroke; there are individual churches that are striving to follow Christ as closely as possible. There are groups, organizations, and families that understand and live our Founders’ vision.

I have set out three critical stress points pressing in with such force as to warrant our immediate attention. Individually each poses a threat of the highest moment. Jointly, well jointly our peril is so grave that only by God’s intervention will victory be gained. But that situation is often, I should say characteristically where God puts His people before He intercedes. For all glory belongs to God.

The three threats are:

1. The atheistic, naturalists’ indoctrination (political correctness)
2. Islamofascist imperialism
3. Geopolitical agenda of globalization/globalism.

Unfortunately, these cankers are deeply embedded. They will not be easily eradicated. Indeed, at best we can only accomplish two things. First, buy our patient more time. Second, be faithful to our country’s founding documents and to Christ’s mandate to His Church (Matt. 28: 18-20; 1 Pet. 3:15; Jude 1: 3).

I will detail more about these threats. The following chapter explains why and how our atheistic society became that way. Chapter 4 will discuss the imperialistic ambitions of Islam and Chapter 5 will make clear why globalization exposes us to great risk. Remember the three do not work alone. Their force is cumulative and exponential. The functional amalgamation of Islam’s global imperialism and the globalization of America along with the postmodern bent of society have set the stage for a cataclysmic upheaval.

Why go into such detail? Because I belief it is imperative to demonstrate the peril facing our country and the Church and fully illuminate the urgency of the matter. To be successful, I believe this must be driven by the Church.

---

[1] Leeb holds bachelor’s degree in Economics from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business, a master’s degree in Mathematics, and Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Illinois. Leeb is the author of six books on investments and financial trends, as well as the founder and editor of a number of financial newsletters.

[2] Stephen Leeb, ed., The Income Performance Newsletter, Winter (New York: Emerging Advisory LLC, 2008), 1.

[3] Joseph Nye received his bachelor’s degree from Princeton University. Subsequently, he did postgraduate work at Oxford University on a Rhodes Scholarship and earned his PhD in political science from Harvard. was Dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University from 1995 to 2004 and has authored a number of books.

[4] Joseph Nye, “Globalism Versus Globalization,” The Globalist (Washington DC: The Globalists, 2000-2007), http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=2392

[5] http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Transnational_corps/TransnationalCorps.html

[6] Ibid.

[7] Metaphysical Pluralism posits that there are multiple realities, e.g. there is no absolute truth—what is true for me may not be true for you.

[8] Religious pluralism, simply stated is inclusive of all religious beliefs. All roads lead to “heaven” or the “Ultimate Being,” however he/she is conceived.

MIDWINTER REFLECTIONS ~ Liberty or License – The Rule of Law or Lawlessness

Why are we at this late date, as a country, having to define what true marriage is?

It is because we no longer understand how and why marriage was instituted. Since folks have to go to the state to get a marriage license, they think the right to marriage must come the state; from government—right? Wrong.

The trouble is “we’ve been having the wrong conversation about marriage in the world. At the core of the matter is the lie of choice. As “free,” “liberated,” autonomous beings we believe we should be able to do whatever we choose.

We confuse liberty and license.

This is a logical extension of Darwinian and “Saganian” philosophy. We are but a “pale  blue dot,” a small insignificant speck in the cosmos caused by chance then it follows that there is no purpose or meaning to life—so said Carl Sagan.

If that is the case then why are all of those who believe that, trying to convince those who do not believe it, that we should believe it?

I mean, if indeed life is meaningless, why try to impose your lack of meaning on other people’s lack of meaning who have a different lack of meaning than you? It’s all meaningless!

The truth is, at their core, nobody thinks their life is meaningless in a truly existential sense. It comes down to a matter of rebellion cloaked in the mantle of “choice” . . . our choice to “hook-up,” followed by our choice to murder a baby resultant of that choice; our choice to have queer sex, our choice to “marry” our queer partner.

Queer, now there is a word war. One of Encarta’s definitions characterizes “queer” as “an offensive term meaning gay.”

Yet the non-PC, term “queer,” really is the more definitive term. Which is why it offends queer men and women. But that’s all semantics.

Nevertheless it is the queers and their agenda that they shove down our throats that are offensive to the rest of normal society, yes, normal society. Nobody seems to worry if the majority are offended.

Indeed, God calls homosexuality an “abomination.” This abomination is the toxic fluid being sprayed on marriage and those who hold marriage as between a man and a woman.

While we’ve been debating about how to renovate marriage, we’ve been ignoring the fact that it is the “gay spray” is making, not only marriage sick, but our civilization en bloc.

What used to be nauseous to humankind is now slurped up like a dog’s vomit.

The real question is how to stop a small aberrant part of society from framing the argument and definition of marriage.

At least part of the answer is STOP BEING PC! Stop being afraid to tell the truth.

Fact: Marriage did not originate with man. Fact: Marriage was instituted by God.

That is the real reason the deviant elitists are spraying marriage with deadly toxins trying to kill it, because they deny God and they deny God exists.

That is a the heart of it.

Simply put they are fools in their hearts . . . and “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, doing abominable iniquity; there is none who does good.”Psalm 14:1; Psalm 53:1

And that is an end of it.