IT’S NOT TRUMP THEY ARE GOING AFTER…IT’S YOU.

coming-after-you-copy

You will not about read this in any Christian magazine.  The radical left has declared a very unusual kind of war on us—a war that Christian leaders will not admit and are totally unprepared to fight.

The Trump victory has inflamed the left so much that they totally rejecting the election and disregarding the rule of law.  Here is what you may already know:

Fake news: NBC poured 400 million dollars into Buzz Feed.  Buzz Feed released fake news that portrayed Trump as a pervert in Russia.  Only Trump was never there and the entire incident was made up to destroy his reputation.

CNN reacted to this in an underhanded way that allowed the narrative to spread while feigning journalistic innocence.

Fake boycotts:  Pop singers who were never invited to the inauguration claimed to boycott it.  Black celebrities like Steve Harvey were eviscerated just for meeting with Trump.  40 Democratic leaders are boycotting the event.

Fake California revolution:  Behaving as if America had been taken over in a coup, California has declared itself a sanctuary state for the resistance.  They have hired former Attorney General Eric Holder to fight all Trump legislation.  California Congresswoman Maxine Waters is moving for impeachment.   Trump is not even in office yet!

cali_sink

Fake Obama peaceful transference of power:  Equally despicable is Obama.  Obama is filled with rage about Trump.  He is frantically using his pen to lay as many landmines as possible for Trump.  He releasing cop killers, terrorists, and traitors—a rogue’s gallery that has but one thing in common—they hate America.

However, all this pales before the news I am about to share with you.  What you must understand—the thing you must get—is, they are not going after Trump—they are going after you.  I am talking about 80% of all Evangelicals and 63 million voters.

They are not calling Trump a racist—they are calling you a racist.  They are not saying Trump hates Gays, Mexicans, and Muslim immigrants—they are saying you do.

According to them: Voting for Trump makes us totally despicable racists and haters who must have our rights revoked.

The 4-alarm leftist hissy fit is only the opening act.  Expect strikes, violent demonstrations, and a towering litany of acts of “civil disobedience.”

Obama is not going away—He will lead the charge.  His true mission to undermine America will kick in now that he is no longer restrained by the presidency.  He will lead a confederation of movie stars, politicians, billionaires, Muslim leaders and minions in the United Nations.

Trump legislation will be throttled at every turn.  The media will launch a withering nonstop assault on every word he says.

As I said, they are not going after Trump they are going after you and me.  If this is true how then should we prepare?  Here are my heartfelt convictions of what we must do now.

yes-they-are-going-after-you

  1. Don’t let them bully you, learn from history.   It is 1776 all over again. British rule then is very much like leftist rulers now.  Loyalists joined British forces in oppressing the colonists and told them that their elected officials were not valid.

The leftist elites are not British monarchs or red coats but they are telling us what we can and cannot believe.  They are seizing our rights.  T.V. Networks and billion dollar companies are working to overrule a free and fair election.

The challenge of the church today is the same as it was in 1776.  Revolutionary war Christians understood that they could not be on the sidelines as their rights were being destroyed.   Their call was to stand with the freedom fighters.

kick-in

 

  1. We must fight with the weapons of God! Thank God, we are not waging physical war but we are fighting a spiritual war. To fight, we must pray and speak the Word of God.  We cannot afford to listen to those who say we should not speak out against Islam, immorality or far left totalitarianism.

Some ask “won’t this make us look unloving and turn lost souls off to the Gospel?”  On the contrary, when we speak out with the power of the Holy Spirit it will shatter the strong delusion that is pervading our society.

Moreover, the early colonists knew they were building a nation that would be a lighthouse of the Gospel to the world.  The iron curtain that these celebrities and media tyrants are ringing down on us will silence the Gospel and leave Israel at the mercy of all her enemies.

  1. Build on prophecy: If you believe that Trump is a miracle that is a type of King Cyrus then act like it! Seize this divine opportunity to stand with policies that best reflect our values.

With the very same breath that we call Satan a liar…we must call falsehood out!  Preachers all over America must ring the bell of liberty in their pulpits by calling out the intellectual frauds who would remove our freedom.

They are not harmless actors and singers, they agents of tyranny that are not coming after Trump they are coming after you…but if God be for you who can be against you?

Responding to the American Sniper Backlash: Angry, Remorseless Warriors Are Still Heroes

Responding to the American Sniper Backlash: Angry, Remorseless Warriors Are Still Heroes

BradleyCooperAmericanSniper
 Here we go again. Last January — when Lone Survivor hit wide release — some on the left used the occasion to slander soldiers, bash America, and revise the historical record. This January, the movie is American Sniper, and it’s the late Chris Kyle’s turn to be maligned, mocked, and generally used in a bad-faith campaign to not only delegitimize American self-defense against jihadist terror but also the very character of many men and women in uniform. The pretext for hit pieces against Kyle’s extraordinarily precise military professionalism (please read Chris Mark’s outstanding piece on the true nature of America’s snipers) lies in his obvious rage against our jihadist enemies.

Here’s The Atlantic’s Megan Garber, in a piece called “American Sniper Makes a Case Against ‘Support Our Troops:’”

And yet. What tends to happen when you’re good at your job is that you also come to enjoy it. In Kyle’s book, he admitted, “I love war.” He described killing as “fun.” He noted that “I couldn’t give a flying f— about the Iraqis,” going on to explain that “I hate the damn savages.” But are the sacrifices of war still sacrifices when you enjoy them? Is heroism still heroism when you’re motivated by hatred?

When you lay down your life for your country, when you lay down your life for your brothers next to you, when you routinely take greater risks in a day than the average American will ever endure, and when you fight an enemy more evil than Ms. Garber likely comprehends not through jihadist tactics of indiscriminate killing, but by taking extraordinary risks to kill the enemy and only the enemy, then yes — emphatically yes — you are a hero.

But Garber is outdone (unsurprisingly) by The Guardian, where Lindy West — whose bio describes her as a “writer, editor and performer whose work focuses on pop culture, social justice, humour and body image” — describes Kyle as a “hate-filled killer:”

How much, if at all, should Eastwood concern himself with fans who misunderstand and misuse his work? If he, intentionally or not, makes a hero out of Kyle – who, bare minimum, was a racist who took pleasure in dehumanising and killing brown people – is he responsible for validating racism, murder, and dehumanisation? Is he a propagandist if people use his work as propaganda?

West and Garber aren’t alone in their scorn for Kyle. West’s piece cites a series of other pieces, one of which describes the Iraqi jihadists Kyle fought — the forerunners to the Islamic State — as people “whose only crime was to defend the integrity and sovereignty of their own country.” (That would be news, of course, to the tens of thousands of intentional civilian victims of suicide bombings, car bombings, beheadings, torture, and other grotesque obscenities.)

And what is Kyle’s offense? They can’t point to any war crimes. They can’t point to any record of dishonorable service. They hate him for despising our enemies. They accuse him of racism.

I’m sorry, but I’m beyond sick of this notion that American soldiers who killed our enemies downrange “dehumanized” brown people. Here’s what they did: Risked their lives — and often gave their lives — for the “brown people” who suffered most at the hands of jihadists. Who would suffer most if al-Qaeda had overrun Iraq? Who would suffer most if the Taliban re-took

Afghanistan? Men and women like Chris Kyle did more in any one deployment to save and protect “brown people” than Garber, West, or their friends will do in their entire “social justice”-obsessed lives, combined.

Moreover, is the new standard for “heroism” the notion that our men and women must now watch our enemies saw the heads off women, use women and children as suicide bombers, detonate bombs in hospitals and restaurants, kill children in front of their mothers, and then kill your dearest friends — people closer to you than brothers — without feeling rage and fury?

What is remarkable about Kyle — and the hundreds of thousands of other Americans who faced hostile fire day after day — is not their rage, but their discipline. Kyle responded to atrocities with anger, but his actions reflected professionalism and precision. That is something new in the sweep of history, where — traditionally — wartime atrocities beget reprisals, which beget even greater atrocities. The American military has broken that cycle. In our wars, the enemy’s atrocities are typically answered with the most precise weapons of warfare in human history — and no weapon was more precise than Chris Kyle’s rifle.

Yes, Chris Kyle was angry at our enemy. So are many — and likely most — of the vets who saw our enemies up close. But Kyle’s anger manifested itself in courage and honor on the battlefield, and for that he is — without doubt — a hero.

Rest in peace Chris Kyle. And thank you for your righteous, channeled rage.

The Liberal God Delusion

The Liberal God Delusion

by Dec 28, 2012 4:45 AM EST

Our government has been hijacked by a party obsessed with a higher power. But I’m not talking about the GOP. I’m talking about the left and their worship of government.

As Washington staggers into a new year, one side of the political spectrum polarizes and paralyzes all ongoing debates due to its irrational reliance on a higher power.

The Liberal God Delusion

Camilo Morales/Glowimages/Corbis

The problem isn’t religious conservatives and their abiding faith in God; it’s mainstream liberals and their blind confidence in government.

Consider the current dispute over the right response to gun violence. At its core, this argument comes down to a visceral disagreement between relying on self-defense or on government protection. Gun-rights enthusiasts insist that the best security for law-abiding citizens comes from placing formidable firearms into their hands; gun-control advocates believe we can protect the public far more effectively by taking guns away from as many Americans as possible. In other words, conservatives want to address the threat of gun violence by giving individuals more power while liberals seek to improve the situation by concentrating more power in the hands of the government. The right preaches self-reliance while the left places its trust in the higher power of government.

The same dynamic characterizes most of today’s foreign-policy and defense debates. Right-wingers passionately proclaim the ideal of “peace through strength,” arguing that a powerful, self-confident America with dominant military resources remains the only guarantee of national security. Progressives, on the other hand, dream of multilateral consensus, comprehensive treaties, disarmament, grand peace deals, and vastly enhanced authority for the United Nations. Once again, liberals place a touching and naive faith in the ideal of a higher power—potential world government—while conservatives insist that the United States, like any nation, must ultimately rely only on itself.

Regarding the great tax-and-spend battles presently pushing the nation ever closer toward the dreaded fiscal cliff, the right argues that the economy will perform better if money is controlled by those who earn it while the left wants to government to make better, more generous decisions on how to invest that money. Despite abundant evidence to the contrary from the failed welfare states of Western Europe, liberals maintain unwavering devotion to the notion that taking funds out of the private sector will miraculously generate more private-sector economic growth. Republicans trust the private decisions of prosperous people to make the best use of the money that those citizens have generated; Democrats rely on the superior wisdom and broader perspective of a larger, more activist government to distribute rewards and plan for the future in a complex economy.

In selecting strategies for helping the poor and uplifting the downtrodden, the opposed approaches of left and right offer an especially sharp contrast. According to Arthur Brooks’s important book Who Really Cares and many other studies, conservatives at every income level provide disproportionate support for private charities. On my radio show, we spent the holiday season raising nearly $50,000 for the Salvation Army with its focus on rescuing substance abusers, the homeless, and disaster victims from their miserable circumstances. Liberals, on the other hand, consider such private efforts insufficient and demand governmental initiatives and interventions to supplement the private armies of compassion.

This raises an uncomfortable question for true believers of the left: if organizations like the Salvation Army have indeed done a phenomenal job over many decades in turning lives around and bringing hope to the hopeless, why wouldn’t government want to invest its resources in supporting these operations rather than launching their own bureaucratic efforts? If private charities aren’t large enough at the moment to cope with the epic dimensions of poverty-related problems, wouldn’t government funding to expand these proven organizations provide a better investment—reaching more people at lower cost—than any costly federal start-up?

The contemptuous refusal even to consider such an approach stems from two sources: a liberal belief in totally restructuring a broken society rather than merely repairing the broken lives of individuals, and the related belief in the healing, transformative power of top-down, government-instituted change.

There’s also the inevitable tendency of any fanatical faith to despise and distrust all religious alternatives: liberalism can be a jealous god. Most progressives would therefore prefer to commit trillions to purely secular (and mostly dubious) federal and state antipoverty efforts rather than spending less money for more results if those investments involved proven charities with religious agendas.

The left’s contempt for religious conservatives stems in part from the false assumption that people of faith place irrational reliance on the role of God in solving all the world’s problems. Occasional comments by Christian right-wingers—like the rightly derided suggestion that the Newtown massacre resulted from an absence of prayer in public schools—give some credence to this unflattering caricature.

But mainstream conservatism has never denied the importance of human effort or governmental leadership in addressing dire circumstances or everyday difficulties: after all, Republican heroes of history from Lincoln to Reagan have been powerful presidents, not merely passive and prayerful observers. Yes, most religious conservatives hope for divine favor for the land they love but simultaneously embrace the old saw, “God helps those who help themselves.”

Liberals, on the other hand, place their confidence in the notion that “Government helps those who can’t help themselves”—a proposition that’s questionable in both its components. First, it’s wrong and destructive to believe that any America is truly helpless and second, it’s arguable whether government reliably helps more than it hurts when it expands its power into our daily lives.

Fair-minded people of all perspectives should agree that any form of uncompromising, unquestioned, illogical faith can poison public discourse and derail important debates. There’s no effective rejoinder to the declaration that “God tells me that that I’m right and I refuse to consider other arguments.”

There is similarly no easy response to the insistence that “I know that government can fix this problem and don’t confuse me with evidence to the contrary.”

In the wake of Obama’s reelection, unreasoning reliance on federal power distorts our politics far more destructively than simple-minded faith in God. At the moment, big-government fundamentalism poses more of a threat to the republic than religious absolutism.