The Front Page Cover
2016 The truth will set you free
Featuring:
On the Danger of Christian
Leaders Endorsing Candidates
by Michael Brown
~~~
.
The Corrupt liar-Clinton Culture
With USA Today's reporting on Monday of 20 women having sued Donald Trump for either gender-based mistreatment or discrimination, the "shock" expressed by many — especially those of the media and political class — is frankly disingenuous. Trump's indiscretions should be surprising to no one. His lack of presidential character is one of the primary reasons conservatives opposed his nomination. Trump is a known quantity with serious character flaws in his personal life. The Leftmedia for the most part chose to store up these issues until it proved politically expedient for liar-Hillary Clinton to talk about them.
Speaking of the liar-Clintons, we could credit — or better yet, blame — them for creating the culture of rationalizing the separation and compartmentalization of a political figure's personal life from their public service record. In 1992, Bill liar-Clinton was confronted on "60 Minutes" with accusations of his marital infidelity. He countered with this gem: "I know it's an issue, but what does that mean? That means that 86% of the American people either don't think it's relevant to presidential performance or look at whether a person, looking at all the facts, is the best to serve." In other words, Bill's personal life doesn't really matter and has no bearing on his public service.
So after all of Bill and liar-Hillary's lies, and Bill's sexually repugnant behavior even while in office, he is still viewed favorably by most Democrats. And it can be rightly surmised that after what Bill and liar-Hillary Clinton have gotten away with, one can hardly blame Trump for believing himself to be just as qualified for office as either of the liar-Clintons. Bill liar-Clinton may be right in his observation that Americans care little about the "personal life" indiscretions of their leaders so long as they like their public service. This may be the best explanation for the two candidates Americans have chosen. ~The Patriot Post
.
It Wasn't Donald Trump Who...
James Shott: Almost everyone agrees that this is the most unusual election in our lifetimes. We have two major party candidates with the highest disapproval ratings that anyone can remember. And each candidate's supporters ignore the negatives and continue to support the candidate because so much is at stake.
Democrat liar-Hillary Clinton comes from decades in the political sphere as the wife of a governor and president, as a U.S. senator and as secretary of state. Republican Donald Trump comes from decades in the private sector as a businessman and entertainment show producer, having first entered political life for the 2015 Republican primary.
Both have a long list of negatives their political enemies hope will disqualify them in the eyes of voters. However, there are important differences between them. It wasn't Donald Trump who for personal convenience as secretary of state flaunted the rules and long-established procedures, taking the unprecedented step of evading the official secure government email system in favor of a private email server for government business, including classified information. And it wasn't Donald who then had the server scrubbed, destroying thousands of messages that were not only government property, but evidence, and then couldn't provide a credible reasons for any of it.
It wasn't Donald Trump whose possible-criminal situation caused untold irregularities in the operation of the State Department, the FBI and the Justice Department. Those included a "chance" meeting on an airport tarmac between the prime suspect's husband and the attorney general of the United States, putting dozens of public servants in the position to destroy their credibility and trustworthiness to save a presidential candidate's backside.
It wasn't Donald Trump whose vast experience in government in the U.S. Senate and the State Department resulted in neglecting dozens of requests for increased security prior to the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya. That attack resulted in the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other brave Americans. And it wasn't Trump who then blamed an obscure Internet video for a clear terrorist attack, resulting in jailing the video's producer.
And it wasn't Donald Trump whose frequent profanity-laced tirades insulted and denigrated Secret Service agents and White House staffers.
But that was a long time ago, and since all of that was a long time ago, it probably isn't relevant that it also wasn't Donald Trump who worked for the congressional committee investigating the Watergate cover-up many years ago, and was fired for lying.
It was Donald Trump who took some money from his father, invested it in businesses and created hotels, casinos, golf courses and television shows. Some of his creations didn't work out, as is not uncommon in the world of business. Luminaries such as Henry Ford, Walt Disney, F.W. Woolworth, Albert Einstein and Bill Gates also sometimes failed.
It was Donald Trump who claimed business losses of nearly a billion dollars on tax returns many years ago, probably cancelling an equal amount of income over several years, using provisions in the tax code to reduce taxable income, just as most every American who pays taxes does through deductions for such things as dependents, mortgage interest and charitable giving.
For taking legal tax deductions Trump has attracted mountains of criticism from his betters, who somehow twist this into meaning he doesn't care about the country, or the military and dozens of other things. But the thousands of people who work in his businesses do pay taxes, and that is significant.
And, yes, it was Donald Trump who managed to anger his primary opponents and many Americans with his petulant personal attacks against those who opposed and challenged him. His crass manner leaves much to be desired, and his locker room vulgarity, spoken in private 11 years ago, justifiably repulsed anyone not blinded by partisanship. But if some rapper had used those same words as lyrics, it'd be #1 on Billboard.
Apparently, it's a more serious offense to say things that offend someone than to put national interests at risk, to lose $6 billion of State Department funds and generally fail to competently run the agency you've been entrusted to run, and then go on to make millions giving $250,000 secret-content speeches to Wall Street banks that you publicly criticize. By virtue of merely having been elected a U.S. senator and appointed as a cabinet secretary, you are thus qualified to be president, even if the "best" you did in those positions was inconsequential or, too often, harmful.
Strangely, people are more offended by Trump's words than liar-Hillary's vicious attacks on her hubby's numerous sexual victims and conquests, her position on coal mining and the Supreme Court, and her comments supporting open borders, spoken in a private $250,000 speech.
Trump is a crass bully with an authoritarian streak. liar-Clinton's hubris already put national security at risk, and she will continue nObama's dangerous, destructive, and unconstitutional policies. Thus is our choice. ~The Patriot Post
.
.
'Judicial tyranny on
steroids' creates arbitrary sanctuary
by Paul Bremmer
{wnd.com} ~ First the nObama administration reduces deportations to their lowest level in a decade, then a federal judge decides even those aliens the nObama administration wants to deport should effectively be granted amnesty... That is what happened recently when Judge John Lee of the Northern District of Illinois issued an order voiding thousands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Kansas, Missouri and Wisconsin – the states where plaintiffs had filed a class action lawsuit. This federal order will prevent ICE from placing detainers on many of the illegal aliens held in local jails in those six states, according to Daniel Horowitz, senior editor at Conservative Review and author of “Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges From Transforming America.”...
.
Russia Rattling the Saber -
Is This Leading to War For the US?
by Kerry Lear
{punchingbagpost.com} ~ As the relationship between Russia and the U.S. continues to get more turbulent, there is more speculation about an approaching war. "Relations between Russia and the United States can't get any worse... The only way they can get worse is if a war starts," said Vladimir Zhirinovsky to Reuters. Zhirinovsky is an ally of Putin and just received a top state award from the Russian president after his pro-Kremlin Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) came third in Russia's parliamentary election last month. "Americans voting for a president on Nov. 8 must realize that they are voting for peace on Planet Earth if they vote for Trump. But if they vote for liar-Hillary it's war. It will be a short movie. There will be Hiroshimas and Nagasakis everywhere." Zhirinovsky had similar sentiments when speaking with CNN also... http://punchingbagpost.com/russia-rattling-the-saber---is-this-leading-to-war-for-the-us
.
The Vatican Submits to Islam (2006-2016)
by Giulio Meotti
by Giulio Meotti
In 2006, Pope Benedict XVI (left) said what no Pope had ever dared to say -- that there is a link between violence and Islam. Ten years later, Pope Francis (right) never calls those responsible for anti-Christian violence by name and never mentions the word "Islam."
{gatestoneinstitute.org} ~ If 9/11 was the declaration of jihad against the West, 9/12 will be remembered as one of the most dramatic knee-bends of the Western cultural submission to Islam... On September 12th 2006, Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) landed in Bavaria, Germany, where he was born and first taught theology. He was expected to deliver a lecture in front of the academic community at the University of Regensburg. That lesson would go down to history as the most controversial papal speech of the last half-century. On this, the 10th anniversary of the speech, the Western world and the Islamic world both owe Benedict an apology, but unfortunately, the opposite happened: the Vatican has apologized to the Muslims...
.
She-riah law: liar-Hillary
kept Michael Savage on hate list
by wnd.com
{wnd.com} ~ Then-U.S. Secretary of State liar-Hillary Clinton determined not to lift a finger to persuade the United Kingdom to lift its ban on travel by talk-show kingpin and bestselling author Michael Savage in an email to her chief legal counsel Cheryl Mills posted by WikiLeaks... In addition, in a followup email, Mills explains the kind of ban imposed by the U.K. on Savage could happen in the United States under current law. The June 5, 2009, email with a subject line of “Savage holding pattern and next steps,” is from liar-Clinton herself from her private email account – hrod17@liar-clintonemail.com – to Mills at her official State Department email address – millsscd@state.gov... http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/hillary-email-dont-help-savage-with-ban-from-u-k/
.
Warning! South Korea Ready
To Shoot Chinese Boats...
{familysurvivalheadlines.com} ~ Violent confrontations could escalate between South Korea and Chinese boats found fishing in its waters after the US ally sanctioned a greater use of force, including the use of firearms, to control its sea border... The threat of lethal force comes as China publically berated the US over its operations close to artificial islands Beijing has built in the South China Sea, and its plan to deploy a missile defense system to South Korea. China’s ambassador was summoned by South Korean officials to protest the latest clash off the Korean peninsula’s west coast, in which a coastguard patrol boat sank last week after being rammed by a Chinese fishing vessel. There were no reported casualties... http://familysurvivalheadlines.com/warning-south-korea-ready-to-shoot-chinese-boats-increased-distress-of-nations/
.
Top 36 liar-Hillary F-bombs,
flip-outs and eye-popping tantrums
by wnd.com
{wnd.com} ~ In just three weeks, American voters might just “unleash liar-Hellary” on the nation – electing a president known to fly into foul-mouthed fits of rage, hurl dangerous objects at people’s heads, physically attack a former president and even diabolically tongue-lash Secret Service agents sworn to protect her with their lives... That’s according to dozens of witnesses – many former Secret Service agents, Arkansas state troopers and an FBI agent – who might say Democratic Party nominee liar-Hillary Clinton is what Rush Limbaugh could call “a witch with a capital B.” But don’t expect the mainstream media to start digging into liar-Hillary’s reported temper tantrums any time soon. While the major networks focus single-mindedly on an 11-year-old video recording of GOP nominee Donald Trump making sexually charged comments about women, they virtually ignore claims by witnesses who say liar-Hillary’s foul-mouthed fits of rage happen even today...
.
nObama Announces Attack On,
End Of Free Speech – No Objections Uttered
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ One might argue that when a leader, one that still has not proven who he is, of the United States can publicly call for an end of free speech and the First Amendment, on US soil, our nation is lost... That is made increasingly more likely when the free press, the one that doesn’t report on the treasonous comments, is completely owned by the federal criminals. That is the case in the United States and those are the events that took place this week in Pittsburgh, PA. nObama came to town, bragging on how technology, presumably all thanks to his greatness and superior leadership as the pretend ‘president.’ He said, “There’s a reason that US Steel Tower is now also the corporate home of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.” He doesn’t say it’s because globalist policies and EPA restrictions have killed America’s steel industry, he pretends technological growth simply outpaced it. nObama lies, that’s what he does. He went further to advocate for the abolishment of the First Amendment, though not in such a direct manner as to create concerns among the sleeping American people. He adopted some clever language that would label what he have now, a more or less free, open and constitutional environment for the exchange of ideas as dangerous and irresponsible. He labeled what we have now as the “wild wild west” and inferred that America needs a new sheriff to come in and bring order to the chaos. Our illegitimate dictator equated freedom with lawlessness... http://rickwells.us/obama-announces-attack-end-free-speech-objections-uttered/
.
USS Mason fires missiles
in Red Sea after apparent attack
by Barbara Starr and Caroline Kenny
{theconservativetreehouse.com} ~ The Navy destroyer USS Mason fired countermeasures in the Red Sea on Saturday after it detected what it believed were incoming missiles... Officials Saturday night were uncertain about what exactly happened, if there were multiple incoming missiles or if there was a malfunction with the radar detection system on the destroyer. "We are aware of the reports and we are assessing the situation. All of our ships and crews are safe and unharmed," one US defense official told CNN. The USS Nitze and the USS Ponce were sailing nearby. There are initial unconfirmed reports of missiles possibly being fired from positions both ashore on Yemen and by small spotter boats operated by Houthi rebels...
.
Judge Jeanine – Forget The Fake
“Scandals,” USA Needs Donald Trump
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Judge Jeanine starts off her opening statement at the 1:20 mark of the video with a short reminder of her early days as an advocate for women in instances of domestic violence... She makes that point to provide context to the fact that she understands the gravity of an instance of sexual abuse. While she says she has been offended by things that were said both by Bill liar-Clinton and Donald Trump, it is the actions of Bill liar-Clinton that are concerning, not mere words from Mr. Trump of eleven years ago. She recognizes it’s time to move beyond those things in this election. Judge Jeanine vouches for his character, that she has known Donald Trump for 25 years and details how she has been with him in family, party, business and public events. She has “never, ever heard him talk or act the way his accusers claim he did, period, end of the story. So let’s get on to what really matters to us, our families, and our pocket books.” “There are two candidates, folks, from which to choose,” Judge Jeanine says. “Neither is perfect but I choose Donald Trump. The other side is so dangerous and so scary that to vote for her is a guarantee of at least three if not four Supreme Court justices who will chip away and destroy the fundamental rights and guarantees of the United States Constitution... http://rickwells.us/judge-jeanine-forget-fake-scandals-usa-needs-donald-trump/
.
New FBI files contain allegations
of 'quid pro quo' in liar-Clinton's emails
by Catherine Herridge and Pamela K. Browne
{foxnews.com} ~ FBI interview summaries and notes, provided late Friday to the House Government Oversight and Intelligence Committees, contain allegations of a "quid pro quo" between a senior State Department executive and FBI agents during the liar-Hillary Clinton email investigation, two congressional sources told Fox News... "This is a flashing red light of potential criminality," Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, who has been briefed on the FBI interviews, told Fox News. He said "there was an alleged quid pro quo” involving Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy and the FBI “over at least one classified email.” “In return for altering the classification, the possibility of additional slots for the FBI at missions overseas was discussed,” Chaffetz said... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/16/new-fbi-files-contain-allegations-quid-pro-quo-in-clintons-emails.html
.
.
On the Danger of Christian
Leaders Endorsing Candidates
by Michael Brown
{townhall.com} ~ Last year, for the first time in my life, I endorsed a political candidate, Sen. Ted Cruz, but I’m not sure I’ll endorse a candidate again in the future.
This, however, has nothing to do with Ted Cruz himself, who I still believe was a fine candidate and whom I hope will have a bright political future.
Rather, it has to do with the baggage that comes with endorsing a candidate, and that baggage can be problematic for Christian leaders.
In my view, the issue is not whether pastors and ministry heads should have a voice in politics. I believe we should, and for obvious reasons I oppose the Johnson Amendment.
And I believe we have a responsibility to our congregants and followers to offer scriptural guidelines for choosing a candidate and even to say, “Because of these considerations, I will be voting for candidate X, but you need to give this prayerful consideration and then vote accordingly.”
That is different from endorsing a candidate, which goes even further.
With an endorsement, you are attaching your name to that candidate, which means that your reputations become intertwined.
If the candidate says or does something stupid, or if new, damning information comes out against that candidate, your own name is tarnished in the process, with your critics mockingly asking, “So, what do you think of your man (or, woman) now?”
When I announced my endorsement for Ted Cruz 11 months ago, I offered three reasons for my endorsement: “1) he is a man of unshakable, conservative moral convictions; 2) he is willing to take on the Washington establishment; 3) we need a radical shift in the direction of our country, and his team has asked me to help get out the evangelical vote.”
Additionally, because I live to see a gospel-based moral and cultural revolution in America and because I felt that Sen. Cruz was the kind of politician who could help advance such a godly revolution, the invitation to endorse him was also an invitation to be of potential help to him in the future.
Of course, I gave the endorsement with clear caveats, stating that our hope must be in God, not in man, also stating that “I'm not opposing other godly candidates; I'm not here to become the apologist for Ted Cruz, and as a radio host and writer. I'll do my best to report fairly on the elections as they unfold.”
But I immediately began to see problems with making an endorsement.
First, everything I wrote or said agreeing with Cruz or disagreeing with his one of his oppponents was filtered through this endorsement, as in, “You’re obviously biased and you’ve got your heart involved in this election.”
Since my primary calling is to be a voice, I felt that my ability to be a voice was somewhat hindered by my endorsement, even if what I wrote was fair and impartial.
In the same way, pastors and leaders need to ask themselves, “Will I compromise my ability to minister to my flock and fulfill my responsibilities by endorsing a particular candidate?” This can be especially relevant during the primaries, where the choices between right and wrong might not be as stark.
But that leads to a second issue. Was I truly being impartial in my political statements and writings? Was I actually being an apologist for Cruz or a critic of his competitors?
I certainly hope that was not the case, and I used as many checks and balances as possible to ensure objectivity. But I’m only human, and it’s possible that, on some level, however small, my objectivity was compromised.
Third, endorsing a candidate stirs up more division within the Body, especially when there are not clear moral choices, as was the case, say, between Ted Cruz or Mike Huckabee or Ben Carson. Yet believers become so passionate defending their candidate and attacking the others that an endorsement seems to exacerbate the divisions. In contrast, discussing the issues and evaluating who appears to strongest on those issues can be a more constructive approach.
Fourth, when it was revealed that Sen. Cruz had not tithed to his church, I was now expected to defend his Christianity, even though I had stated that I was not going to be his apologist. But now his apparent lack of Christian generosity somehow reflected on me.
In more extreme form, the recent release of an 11-year-old video tape containing extremely vulgar and misogynist comments from Donald Trump, coupled with his initial, quite tepid apology, cast an ugly shadow on the prominent Christian leaders who endorsed him.
Is this a risk we are willing to take? If we have sought to walk carefully before God and man for many years, doing our best to keep our testimonies unsullied, is it wise for us to be so closely associated with a political candidate?
It’s one thing to serve in an advisory capacity, either before the candidate is elected or once that candidate is in office. By all means, let us have the maximum godly influence we can have, and let us walk through every good door that is opened for us.
But an endorsement speaks of something more than advice, and with that, there are pitfalls.
Having said all this, I’m not criticizing other leaders who regularly make endorsements, and I can’t guarantee that I’ll never endorse a candidate again.
I’m personally glad that I did endorse Sen. Cruz, since I learned a lot from doing so, while I continue to raise my voice against Christians voting for liar-Hillary Clinton.
But it’s essential as leaders in the Church that we keep the first things first in our lives and callings, being careful not to engage in any behavior or actions that distract us from those callings.
It’s possible that endorsing political candidates is one of those things.
What do you think?
This, however, has nothing to do with Ted Cruz himself, who I still believe was a fine candidate and whom I hope will have a bright political future.
Rather, it has to do with the baggage that comes with endorsing a candidate, and that baggage can be problematic for Christian leaders.
In my view, the issue is not whether pastors and ministry heads should have a voice in politics. I believe we should, and for obvious reasons I oppose the Johnson Amendment.
And I believe we have a responsibility to our congregants and followers to offer scriptural guidelines for choosing a candidate and even to say, “Because of these considerations, I will be voting for candidate X, but you need to give this prayerful consideration and then vote accordingly.”
That is different from endorsing a candidate, which goes even further.
With an endorsement, you are attaching your name to that candidate, which means that your reputations become intertwined.
If the candidate says or does something stupid, or if new, damning information comes out against that candidate, your own name is tarnished in the process, with your critics mockingly asking, “So, what do you think of your man (or, woman) now?”
When I announced my endorsement for Ted Cruz 11 months ago, I offered three reasons for my endorsement: “1) he is a man of unshakable, conservative moral convictions; 2) he is willing to take on the Washington establishment; 3) we need a radical shift in the direction of our country, and his team has asked me to help get out the evangelical vote.”
Additionally, because I live to see a gospel-based moral and cultural revolution in America and because I felt that Sen. Cruz was the kind of politician who could help advance such a godly revolution, the invitation to endorse him was also an invitation to be of potential help to him in the future.
Of course, I gave the endorsement with clear caveats, stating that our hope must be in God, not in man, also stating that “I'm not opposing other godly candidates; I'm not here to become the apologist for Ted Cruz, and as a radio host and writer. I'll do my best to report fairly on the elections as they unfold.”
But I immediately began to see problems with making an endorsement.
First, everything I wrote or said agreeing with Cruz or disagreeing with his one of his oppponents was filtered through this endorsement, as in, “You’re obviously biased and you’ve got your heart involved in this election.”
Since my primary calling is to be a voice, I felt that my ability to be a voice was somewhat hindered by my endorsement, even if what I wrote was fair and impartial.
In the same way, pastors and leaders need to ask themselves, “Will I compromise my ability to minister to my flock and fulfill my responsibilities by endorsing a particular candidate?” This can be especially relevant during the primaries, where the choices between right and wrong might not be as stark.
But that leads to a second issue. Was I truly being impartial in my political statements and writings? Was I actually being an apologist for Cruz or a critic of his competitors?
I certainly hope that was not the case, and I used as many checks and balances as possible to ensure objectivity. But I’m only human, and it’s possible that, on some level, however small, my objectivity was compromised.
Third, endorsing a candidate stirs up more division within the Body, especially when there are not clear moral choices, as was the case, say, between Ted Cruz or Mike Huckabee or Ben Carson. Yet believers become so passionate defending their candidate and attacking the others that an endorsement seems to exacerbate the divisions. In contrast, discussing the issues and evaluating who appears to strongest on those issues can be a more constructive approach.
Fourth, when it was revealed that Sen. Cruz had not tithed to his church, I was now expected to defend his Christianity, even though I had stated that I was not going to be his apologist. But now his apparent lack of Christian generosity somehow reflected on me.
In more extreme form, the recent release of an 11-year-old video tape containing extremely vulgar and misogynist comments from Donald Trump, coupled with his initial, quite tepid apology, cast an ugly shadow on the prominent Christian leaders who endorsed him.
Is this a risk we are willing to take? If we have sought to walk carefully before God and man for many years, doing our best to keep our testimonies unsullied, is it wise for us to be so closely associated with a political candidate?
It’s one thing to serve in an advisory capacity, either before the candidate is elected or once that candidate is in office. By all means, let us have the maximum godly influence we can have, and let us walk through every good door that is opened for us.
But an endorsement speaks of something more than advice, and with that, there are pitfalls.
Having said all this, I’m not criticizing other leaders who regularly make endorsements, and I can’t guarantee that I’ll never endorse a candidate again.
I’m personally glad that I did endorse Sen. Cruz, since I learned a lot from doing so, while I continue to raise my voice against Christians voting for liar-Hillary Clinton.
But it’s essential as leaders in the Church that we keep the first things first in our lives and callings, being careful not to engage in any behavior or actions that distract us from those callings.
It’s possible that endorsing political candidates is one of those things.
What do you think?
Comments