So are the police racist? Opinion of a concealed carry owner who still believes the 2nd Amendment

So are the police racist?  Opinion of a concealed carry owner who still believes the 2nd Amendment applies to me.

The police protect me.  If they are in danger I will gladly help them.  I have many friends in law enforcement.

So are police racist?  That would depend on how you define the term?  It also would depend on whether you are the family member of someone shot by police.  Also on how you define racism.  Technically there is one human race, all made in God's image.

Sadly, the big city near me is again have a trial for a police officer who shot and killed another person in the line of duty.  The police officer was white and the man shot was black.  Just as a reminder, I don not like either evolutionary based designation for individuals.  We have one creator who made all mankind in his image.  Anyway back to the farm.

Check out this video.  What do the actual facts show in relation the the ad hominem verbal thrashes by the liberals toward our public servants.  Why can't liberals just tell the truth.  Answer:  It would destroy all their name calling and social justice rhetoric.

Don't expect the liberal media like (Foxnews and CNN) to report on this one.  Sorry, Foxnews this last election as voided my respect for them and who they hire.

Enjoy!

(DNC) is pushing for their new Head to be Radical Muslim from Minnesota (Be Informed)

9/11 Truther for DNC Chair?

We feel compelled to share with you, an alarming story that the mainstream media won’t, regarding a prominent candidate for DNC Chairman, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN).

If elected to this powerful position, Rep. Ellison would be the first Muslim ever to serve as DNC Chairman.

Unfortunately, this would not be the only “glass ceiling” the Congressman’s appointment would shatter.

Rep. Ellison would also be the first 9/11 truther to be given the reigns to the DNC. In other words, he implied that 9/11 was an inside job, committed by the United States Government, most notably President George W. Bush.

That’s right, a 2007 video has surfaced in which Rep. Ellison back in 2007, compares the events of 9/11 to the Reichstag fire that helped bring Adolf Hitler to power in Nazi Germany. This stunt he referenced was a ruse, designed to coalesce the will of the people around Hitler.

As the Washington Free Beacon notes, Ellison proclaimed:

“Remember 9/11. Right? You had never had all this discrimination against religious minorities but for 9/11,” Ellison said. “You had it, but you didn’t have it to the degree that we have it now. 9/11 is this juggernaut event in American history, and it allows—it’s almost like, you know, the Reichstag fire kind of reminds me of that. Does anybody know what I’m talking about?”

“But who benefited from 9/11?” an audience member asked.

“Well, I mean, you know, you and I both know,” Ellison said.

“Yeah, Bush,” the audience member replied, a clear reference to then-President George W. Bush.

“But the thing is that, you know, after the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted,” Ellison said.

This is a statement by a United States Congressmen, and frontrunner for DNC Chairman? All aboard the lunatic train if Ellison should be appointed.

Also, notice how Rep. Ellison’s big takeaway from 9/11 was that it led to discrimination against Muslims. In other words, Ellison is implying that George Bush was secretly behind the events of 9/11, to give himself more power, and so that ordinary Americans would start discriminating against Muslims. Someone check the air quality in Ellison’s office…quickly!

But more striking than this insane theory propagated by a potential DNC Chairman, is Ellison’s ties to radical Islamic terror networks.

Ellison is an enthusiastic supporter of CAIR, a Muslim Brotherhood front group, classified by the United Arab Emirates as a terrorist organization.

Think about that, even a country like the U.A.E that has Sharia law thinks CAIR is dangerously radical!

More to it, Ellison was a spokesman for the Nation of Islam well into his 30’s, a notoriously hateful and anti-Semitic organization.

Ellison also knowingly accepted $50,000 in campaign contributions from Islamic radicals, who openly supported Islamic terrorism and were leaders of front groups for Hamas and other Islamic terror networks.

It wouldn’t just be insane to elect Ellison as DNC Chairman, it would be dangerous.

For Freedom,

ACT for America

http://www.actforamerica.org/

What do the Numbers really tell us? Why do Liberals keep saying "Majority" "Democracy" and "Popular Vote"?

What do the Numbers really tell us?  Why do Liberals keep saying "Majority" "Democracy" and "Popular Vote"?  Why do Liberals in California want to leave?

What do the numbers really tell us?  What don't the democrats and liberals every really say?

Let's look at the numbers.

Based on last polls I saw (without Michigan of course).  Obviously, polls really don't want to show how bad Clinton really lost.

Totals: Trump 60,963,480 and Clinton 62,020,451.
Also, based on counties.  Trump won 3084 of 3141 total US counties.  So I guess he won the majority of counties (just not the counties with lots of illegals and minority voters).

The liberals hate this idea.  They only want to count the millions of extra votes in the big cities.  But in total barely enough to make for what Clinton won in CA alone.  This is why they must continue to rant on total numbers.

So technically if Californian wants to leave the USA, then let them go!!!  The Democrats will always lose future elections.  She would have lost over 5 million votes.  No more "majority" "democratic" votes to whine about any more.  Republican landslide.
Let them leave.  Future Result: Republican victory.

President Obama won California in both 2008 and 2012.
President Bush lost Californian in both 2000 and 2004 (and still one the election).
President Clinton won California in both 1992 and 1996.
So out of the the pass SEVEN presidential elections, Republicans have lost California.
Gotta wonder about the value of California.

So let's do the math.  How much more did she have in the popular vote (counting votes)?
My math shows she only had  1,056, 971 more votes.  But lost the electoral college by a massive landslide.

So let's compare the numbers liberals never talk about.
If you look at California alone, Clinton won by roughly 2.2 million votes.  So what does that say for the other 49 states of the Unites States of America.  Trump had more votes without CA.

Let's look even closer about this state making headlines wanting to leave the US.

Both republicans and democrats combined for a little over 10.5 million votes.
So what is California's actual population?   As of last count (2014) CA had roughly 38.8 million residents.  Look at the numbers.  Less than one third CA population actually voted for either candidate (combined).  To be fair there are only 17.9 million registered voters in Californian.  So a little over half voted.

Who would leave the country?  Liberals or Conservatives.  Let them leave.  The Conservatives will move and stay in the country to help ensure future Conservative victories.

How many years now has Texas tried to leave???

Kind of leaves you wondering how many of these millions of disgruntled and winy liberal, feminist democrats are causing the "I want to leave the US" rant in the news.  Let them leave.

How many do you actually think would actually show up to vote for this silly idea?

Probably not the nicest liberal-friendly "politically correct" article, but sometimes the facts hurt.
I would definitely suggest it would create more hurdles to evangelism and/or missions.

Enjoy.

The Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy: The Arguments you Need to Defeat the Loony Left By. Mark W. Smith

The above book cover is from a later addition from 2006.  There was also a subsequent edition in 2008.  My reviews are from an earlier edition in 2004.

I would highly recommend this book to the many "conservative" or not so conservative Christians within the broader American landscape (at least of legal registered voters).

The arguments and comments we have all endured over the past months are nothing new.  In fact many of been held by true red-blood republicans for many years.

This book which will serve as the basis for the following comments was published in 2004.  Many of the arguments and comments employed are just as true as when they were first penned (though now 12 years ago).

I would like to list out the table of contents as the following paragraph points with some follow up comments.  I highly recommend this book for talking with those of liberal politically correct slant on life.  The talking points of each chapter are worth their weight in gold.  However I would like to follow up each discussion with some related Biblical comments.  Although, I'm sure there are many who claim the Christian title who would disagree with nearly every chapter.  So here we go.

Chapter one is entitled, "Find your Vast Right-wing conspiracy rating."  So how would you answer the following (I'll updated some of it to fit our current election candidates field) (pp. 3-5)  His answers are multiple choice I'll just leave a blank.

1. The person best qualified to choose my doctor, my child's teacher, what to eat, and whether I should smoke is _______________.

2. When shopping, I am most likely to make an impulse buy of _______________.

3. Fill in the blank:  The government that governs ________________, governs best.

4. Who was the best president of the last thirty years? _______________.

5. Which nations should have nuclear weapons (nukes)? _______________.

6. Who should own guns in America? _______________.

7. Fill in the blank: Taxes should be __________________________.

8. Before America takes any more military action in the war on terror, we should _______________.

9. The military budget should be _______________.

10. What makes you angry? _______________.

11. Which phrase best describes your beliefs _______________.

12. Who gave you your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? _______________.

Depending on how you answer these questions is a good determinate how much a card carrying member of the vast right-wing conspiracy you truly are.

Just to see where you are in the mix I would like to give you a small illustration.

A young 19-year old daughter just returned from her freshman year and big secular state university somewhere.  She returned home and commenced to pontificate wildly on the many grand things she learned.  She boasted of here high test scores and stellar GPA.  Her father however noticed her dismay at the hard work she put in and the seemingly care-free mentality of her college friends (who seemed to spend more time partying than studying).

In the course of discussion the daughter began to talk with her dad about her new eye opening view of liberal politics and social concerns.  She commenced to continue in disagreement with her father on nearly every issue of conservative politics ranging from finances, war, immigration, gun control, moral and ethical issues, and even religious freedom.  He responded with an illustration from her first semester of college.  It goes as follows.

Father: "I'm sure you worked hard for your grades and high test scores and I'm sure you made a great many personal sacrifices to achieve these goals on your own."

Daughter: "Yes."

Father: "Are you still somewhat upset with your friends carefree view of their education?"

Daughter: "Yes."

Father: "So here is what we'll do.  Since you are so concerned about your friends and their bad GPA.  We'll take from your hard earned GPA and give it to those who party and won't study.  That way everyone will have access to the same GPA and test scores."

Daughter: "But that's not fair,  I'm the one who worked hard for the GPA and good test scores."

Father: "Welcome to the Republican Party!"

Stay tuned to the next chapter, "No liberal media bias? Let's get real."

Book Review and Recommendation: They Like Jesus But Not the Church (Insights from Emerging Generations) By. Dan Kimball

They Like Jesus But Not the Church: Insights from Emerging Generations. By. Dan Kimball (Zondervan: Grand Rapids), 2007.

Interesting read.  Came across this several years ago.  Take a look at his chapter titles.  It almost looks like it was written down political lines.

Truly if chapters five through ten are true for a majority of new evangelical churches then no wonder some many are confused along political lines.  Churches and pulpits are not doing a good job at all.  Everything is not okay just to say "sovereign grace" here there or anywhere.  Obviously based on the statistics youth are not taught and obviously as a result are not living right either.

This is only inflamed by a new evangelical "christian" culture that simply says what you believe is all that matters.  You can live however you want (think: voting morally and ethically here).

This book could have been easily titled "Reasons why I don't Believe the Bible" or perhaps "My theological gripes for leaving the Church."

I would suggest based on other trends appearing in larger "gospel-based" coalition groups, even they wouldn't adhere to the chapter beliefs.

Table of Contents:

Part One: Why Emerging Generations are Changing

Ch. 1  I probably wouldn't like Christians if I weren't one
Ch. 2  Why I escaped the church office
Ch. 3  Jesus as Son of God and plastic action figure
Ch. 4  Meeting those who like Jesus

Part Two: What Emerging Generations Think about the Church

Ch. 5  The church is an organized religion with a political agenda
Ch. 6  The church is judgmental and negative
Ch. 7  The church is dominated by males and oppresses females.
Ch. 8  The church is homophobic
Ch. 9  The church arrogantly claims all other religions are wrong
Ch. 10  The church is full of fundamentalists who take the whole Bible literally

Part Three: How the Church can Respond

Ch. 11 What they wish Church were like
Ch. 12  Out Two Biggest Barriers
Ch. 13  A Great Hope for the Future

This election year definitely will be a roller coaster of a year.

May God have mercy on our country and on His church.

SBC, NPR and Biblical Authority

SBC, NPR and Biblical Authority

What do these have in common?

Well NPR (National Pagan "Public" Radio) just did a radio spot on a recent Gospel-based event in Louisville, KY.  The main individual quoted was SBC president Al Mohler (just for those who need clarification what this event was).

I feel as though for those who heard or didn't hear this radio spot that a few comments are needed.

First, the SBC does not represent Christianity.  It is one denomination within a broader Christian umbrella.  Do I personally agree with the vast majority of what the SBC teaches doctrinally?  Yes, of course it is traditional historic Christian beliefs.

Second, NPR missed the boat.  If you heard the spot it was basically saying the SBC is outdated Christianity out of touch with the moral changes in unbelieving society (think bathroom issues, gender roles, etc...).  They also referenced another church here in the area that left the SBC some 20-25 years ago (over some of these same issues).

Third, biblical authority has to be emphasized above denominational labels.  This authority determines what we belief and how we live.  As far as what we belief goes, the SBC has a great deal of this right (think: orthodoxy).  I disagree with the Reformed Calvinistic slant a great deal of these new cool kids have embraced (both in book, preaching, and lifestyle).

NPR could have spent the whole article focusing on the selective nature of social issues within "conservative" Christianity or the SBC.  They could have addressed why only some sins are addressed when it comes to voting and supposed "conscience" issues--but that will never happen.
They could have talked about the cool-kid evangelical card carrying label just leave out the debated issues for academic respectability--you know literal creation, charismatic gifts, etc...--but that will never happen.  Only an informed insider will know of the inconsistency of belief and practice even within confessing evangelicalism.

Perhaps we need some articles on the following (to help NPR understand the SBC or even evangelicals in general):

How about the following: (rabbit trail)

Why evangelicals can vote with a clear conscience for Mitt Romney (a Mormon) but can't vote for Trump?

Why evangelicals can vote for John McCain (think policies he held to when running against G.W. Bush), but still can't vote for Trump?

We could add other past (Republicans) who were anything but great choices but were still voted in with clear consciences.

Anyway back from the rabbit trail.  The other "baptist" church sited in opposition to the SBC was basically an egalitarian and not complimentarian church in gender roles.  It also had a more inclusive view of other social issues.  Biblical authority was selectively rejected.  The SBC does the same thing just like many other Christian denominations and local churches.

Not meant to solve the issues.

But at least don't hold up the SBC as though it represents Christianity.

Thoughts and comments encouraged.

In a Presidential Election, would you have voted for King David?

In a Presidential election, would you have voted for King David?

So would you have voted for King David?  What about Saul or Solomon?  What actually are you looking for as a Christian in your presidential hopeful?  Economic salvation?  Job security?  Someone sharing your views on the sanctity of life or pro-second amendment?  What about other social justice issues (education, equality, etc...)? 

I watched the debates and after Wednesday night's Republican debate I am even more convinced that the Command and Chief of that United States military needs to be a veteran.  A person who has been in war and seen it personally.  Of course, being a veteran myself and having currently served my country for almost 13 years leaves me a little biased. 

I'm listening and/or reading the comments of businessmen, doctors, politicians on my country's safety, military spending/budgets, economy, and religious motivated terrorism and it leaves me awe struck as a soldier.  Long gone are the days when a general like George Washington becomes president.

So would you have voted for David?  A man after God's own heart.  Surely the Republicans will see past adultery, murder, backstabbing and yes polygamy too.  Same for Saul and Solomon.  Would you have voted for these men?  But listen to the candidates verbally thrash each other and (yes, these are the conservative politicians).

Back to the military theme.  Unless the presidential candidate understands what its like having to pull the trigger, then they just don't understand.  Unless they have been in battle staff meetings and actually had to make the decisions or directly follow the orders, then they don't understand.  Unless the presidential candidate has actually had to sit down and think through just war theories before consider mass killing out of revenge, then they don't understand.  I'm guessing to many people this doesn't make sense.  My guess is you've probably never seen the inside of a recruiters office.  Hope I'm wrong on this one.  Only you know the answer?

Even as a God-fearing Christian trying to read and apply the Scriptures to all of life, I must say I'm rather nervous about the actions and attitude of the Republican hopefuls.  Do I pray for our country? Yes.  Do I pray God will raise up his chosen candidate?  Yes.  I just pray God will raise up a good Christian candidate who "has taken the hill" and not sat in an air conditioned off and ordered others "to take the hill." 

Maybe I need to add a post on just war theory.  

May God bring repentance, and revival and blessing to America.!