Wednesday, October 26, 2016

How Abortion Is Relevant In 2016

Have you ever pondered the question of whether you lived prior to Hitler’s atrocities and had the opportunity to assassinate him, would you do it? Would you support someone else assassinating him? Would you at least support a treasonous uprising that jails Hitler before he starts his killing rampage? Don’t worry, we are not comparing anybody to Hitler. What most people don’t remember is that in the 1930s, Christians in the West were aligned with Stalin in his opposition to Adolph Hitler. Stalin was no saint – quite the opposite. But the enemy of our enemy is our friend. And today, there is still a juncture in which our country finds itself where the lives of the innocent are being corruptly threatened in larger numbers, while still being largely avoidable. There is no greater evil on the ballot today than abortion. We in America already have more infant blood on our hands than that of the entire Holocaust combined. And, don’t kid yourself – it is on the ballot in 2016. There is very much a fight still to be had. And, there is no distant immorality of any particular candidate that overshadows this evil in the eyes of God.

Why is abortion still relevant in 2016? Many Christians have argued as defeatists that we will probably never overturn Roe v. Wade. And, therefore, they give up on this issue altogether. That is precisely what our enemy is cheering for us to do. But, the abortion issue is so much bigger than just overturning Roe v. Wade. First of all, overturning Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with the legality of full-term abortion, since Roe v. Wade agrees with us on full-term abortions. And, opposition to full-term abortion is supported by the vast majority of Americans today. In current polling, the majority of Americans support banning abortions except in certain circumstances. In addition, the vast majority of Americans support fully informed consent prior to abortion. All of these battlefields are still relevant with millions of innocent lives at stake. Most importantly, what most Christians missed or chose to disregard in the final Presidential debate on October 19th is the following quote by Hillary Clinton: “The kinds of cases that fall at the end of pregnancy are often the most heartbreaking, painful decisions for families to make. I have met with women who toward the end of their pregnancy get the worst news one could get: that their health is in jeopardy if they continue to carry to term, or that something terrible has happened or just been discovered about the pregnancy. I do not think the United States government should be stepping in and making those most personal of decisions for women. So, you can regulate if you are doing so with the life and health of the mother taken into account.” And, Johnson’s position is not much better.

First, Hillary’s statement is undeniable support for full-term, partial birth abortion on demand. That is not the will of the people and not even in keeping with Roe v. Wade. Second, Hillary Clinton lied by fabricating examples where full-term abortion is necessary for the mother’s health. No such circumstances or examples exist. Notice how she did not mention the medical threat. According to ob/gyn, Dr. Lawrence K. Konig, “As an ob/gyn physician for 31 years there is no medical situation that requires aborting / killing the baby in the third trimester to ‘save the mother's life.’ Just deliver the baby by c/section and the baby has 95+% survival with readily available NICU care even at 28 weeks. C/section is quicker and safer than partial birth abortion for the mother.” By the way, isn’t that also common sense? What does it say of a Presidential candidate that would lie to defend that which is most deplorable and without defense? What on earth is more dangerous, evil and immoral than this? There is only one medical reason for full-term abortion, and that is the harvesting of full-grown baby tissue – harvesting babies!

What does such a deceiving tactic reveal about the present moral judgement of a candidate? Which speaks more to present moral judgment of the candidate, graphic sexual remarks 11 years ago, or lying in a national debate last week in order to defend partial birth/full-term abortion? Are we truly going to be deceived to overlook the brutal killing and harvesting of innocent children over yet another lie? And, Clinton’s running mate, Tim Kaine, is no better. In the only Vice Presidential debate, he displayed the audacity of quoting a Bible verse (Matthew 12:34) in making his case in favor of abortion. In paraphrase, he said his Catholic faith opposes abortion, but it is the law of the land. Apart from the fact that it should send chills down every Christian’s spine that Clinton’s Vice Presidential pick would distort the Bible to defend abortion, how pathetic an answer is that? Well, slavery was the law of the land. Does that mean the Christians back then were excused from aligning with abolitionists? Thank God that some Christians did not compromise their principles then as Kaine does now. Oh, and isn’t the 2nd Amendment the law of the land? But, you fight that vigorously tooth and nail. At best, the “law of the land” response is cowardly, and at worst murder-abetting. You be the judge.

But, even besides the issue of partial birth abortion, informed consent and a host of other battles to still be fought, there still remains the issue of the left’s attempt to force we the taxpayers to fund the abortions of others against our convictions and against our wills. Those, Christian or not, that support taxpayer funded abortion are by far the minority. Most people are willing to tolerate abortion in certain, narrow circumstances, but certainly not making someone else pay for it against their convictions. Full-term abortion on demand is not supported and neither is forcing tax dollars to fund it. But, the left forces this through Obamacare. Even though Obama signed an executive order to the contrary at its passage, that is easily reversed by executive order by a leftist and corrupt President. And, since its passage, the Obama administration has been actively suing religious organizations over the issue of paying for abortions through Obamacare by way of premiums. This is the unholy agenda. They seek to cram the grotesquely immoral full-term abortion argument down our throats through lies, while they force us to pay for it against our will. It would be one thing if it were all made legal. It is an unholy other to force anyone, especially Christians to pay for it.

Regardless of Trump’s immoral past, on this issue, he is the most moral and most aligned with Christians and our God. That is a black and white, clear-cut fact. And, since he is paying dearly for all of the stands that he is choosing to take without wavering, I would take him at his word. While he used to be a pro-choice Democrat, he is now all-in on the pro-life platform, even at the expense of his own reputation. While his position has evolved over the years, when faced with militant, even threatening opposition, he is not caving on defending the unborn. I will take that form of evolution over the evolution in positions we see on the left. The evolution of positions Hillary has taken has not cost her anything. The evolution that Trump has taken has possibly risked everything. That is evolution of position that I can defend.

What would you do to save millions of children in the womb? How far are you willing to go to protect the lives of the unborn? Are you willing to fight to cut the unholy confiscation of your money to fund wholesale murder for harvesting? If you would deny yourself, what would that look like in a voting booth in 2016? Christian, we were never called to be a people that casts stones at others, especially when the one we are stoning is fighting for us. With two weeks until Election Day, there is only one viable and credible obstacle to the Godless, evil and Hell-bent platform of Hillary Clinton. There is only one option that stands opposed to the corruption that assaults the will of the people. There is only one option that promises to fight for what we value. If you are willing to support Stalin's opposition of Hitler, how far are you willing to go in a voting booth to defend the unborn? Is there something more compelling than stopping this evil? Said another way, after another 50 million babies are dead, how will you feel about your vote when you look back to 2016? 

You can purchase the book "Reason If You Will - How To Answer Questions Regarding Faith" by clicking HERE. Profits go to Camp Bahamas. You can also follow @ReasonIfYouWill on Twitter.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

If Voting Condones Immorality…

For the past couple weeks, the left aided by the judgmental have been preaching to the rest of us that voting for Donald Trump means that we condone his immoral past. Last week we shared how this is a deception and a trap to demoralize Christians and pragmatists into either not voting or throwing away their vote. The sad and immoral ironies of this finger-pointing are horribly rich. Allow me to point some of these out by way of a series of questions. If a vote for Trump endorses his immoral past, then doesn't a vote for Clinton endorse hers? Then doesn’t a vote for Clinton endorse her corruption? Doesn’t a vote for Clinton endorse her criminal obstruction of justice? Do you apply this same approach in the work place when you elect a CEO, hire an employee or promote an employee? Aren’t you opposed to the public judgment of other individuals, while openly judging us? Would Jesus point His finger at us as you are doing? Are you downplaying a much larger and much more immoral threat to far more people?

Let’s begin with “Judge not.” While the left and some religious people preach this partial quote of Jesus (deceivingly ignoring the whole quote), they find no hesitation in ignoring their own advice when it comes to judging those they preach to. For example, they preach that we should not judge homosexual acts as sin, but they can judge us for voting for an immoral man (when every man is immoral). Where is the integrity in that? This hypocrisy is logical rubbish. You either believe and practice what you preach or you are the type of hypocrite that you seek to condemn. That said, as we proceed in this discussion, we will refrain from the obvious hypocrisy of ignoring Hillary’s public destruction of her husband’s sexual assault victims for now so we can focus on immorality that actually relates to the political issues at hand in our country. We vote less on the past than we do on the future. But, since the leftist media establishment wants to make issue of the distant past, let’s focus also on Hillary’s past as it relates to the issues. Isn’t that fair game?

It was highly immoral and illegal for Hillary to destroy evidence while under criminal investigation. That is illegal obstruction of justice. This corruption relates to the issues at hand as the President is supposed to be the Chief Executive who executes the law of the land. That is why under Federal Law, Title 18, Section 2071, Hillary is legally disqualified from running for public office. That statute reads: “Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States … shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.” The difference between Trump’s and Clinton’s immorality is that Clinton’s truly does disqualify her while Trump’s does not.

But, that is not the worst of what you should consider if you truly believe that a vote condones a candidate’s immorality. Hillary Clinton has been very outspoken condemning Trump supporters as “deplorables.” And, she holds herself out as a champion for women and children verbally referencing her historical record. While her bought silence regarding the degradation of women in Muslim cultures discredits her self-promotion, so does her record on abortion. And, she has been found guilty of paying her male staff more than her female staff. But, that is not the worst of it, believe it or not. And, ironically, the worst of Clinton was also caught on tape.

Please pay close attention while I share a true story with you that is not getting a lot of press (for obvious reasons). The year was 1975 and Hillary Clinton was a practicing attorney who decided, as a favor, to represent Thomas Alfred Taylor as his defense counsel against his rape charge. If you did hear about this in the news or in social circles, it was probably framed to you as if she was just doing her job and all people tried for rape have a right to counsel. That is true, but that is not the whole of the story. The victim in this case was Kathy Shelton and she was 12 years old when Hillary’s client brutally raped her. She was so violently raped that she required surgery, stitches and ended up in a coma for five days due to the physical trauma she endured. As a result of the ordeal, she was robbed of her ability to birth children. As part of Hillary’s defense, she had her client submit to a polygraph test, which he passed. She also requested that the girl’s underwear be re-tested at labs of her choosing. However, before she sent it off for testing, she tampered with the evidence by cutting out the parts that contained the girl’s blood and the man’s semen. Of course, the tests came back negative. Lastly, she accused the 12 year old girl in court of having fantasies about sex with older men and even had the court order that this 12 year old girl undergo psychiatric testing against her and the family’s will. Due to Hillary’s obstruction of justice, the rapist got off on a lesser charge for time served (two months). Approximately ten years later (mid 1980s), Hillary admitted all of this on a recorded conversation mixed with her cold laughter. Hillary was recorded laughing at the fact that “I forever lost my faith in polygraph tests.” In other words, Hillary knew he was guilty, abused the evidence, destroyed the girl’s life, and helped the guilty go free. Does that sound like a familiar pattern? Even to this day, Kathy Shelton’s life is ruined. Yes, rapists are due their day in court with defense counsel. But, Hillary illegally destroyed the life of a little girl, and laughed it off. You can hear the tape of her laughing while admitting to all of the above HERE. Isn’t that relevant to a candidate who claims to be the champion for women and children? Isn’t that relevant for a candidate who insists that every rape victim be believed? Isn’t this deplorable?

So, by the finger-pointer’s logic, if voting for Trump condones his distant immoral past, a vote for Clinton condones this. While I don’t subscribe to this logic, if you do, you should be bound by it if you value integrity. However, to me what is worthy of more focus is the immorality of the platform of the candidate of those on the left pointing fingers. The reason why personal immorality is less relevant than platform immorality is because we are primarily voting for the future. And, the left wishes to distract from their corrupt platform. The immorality of Hillary's Godless platform, coupled with globalist and socialist intentions, is a far greater and immoral threat than anything Trump has said or done in his distant past. We are being duped into focusing not on the issues in order to support the one whose stance on the issues reeks with ominous immorality. Would you support an immoral figure who is advocating for the protection of you and your children over an ill-bent opponent? Would you vote for an immoral person rightly advocating for your Constitutional rights over the person opposed to your Constitutional rights? If you realize that it is likely that a candidate that stands on the most immoral platform in our country’s history is about to win, would you not support the most likely obstacle? Does Trump’s immorality exceed Clinton’s combined with her platform’s? Again, moral people can have moral reasons to vote for immoral candidates.

There has been much discussion in Christian circles this election cycle about Biblical analogies to this election and the candidates to Biblical characters. Even in this blog, we have made analogies because analogies to Biblical examples are important to Christians. For example, using the above example, Christians today are being lied to by the immoral media about what morality is and what it should look like in a candidate by virtue of slanted comparison. But, this media seems to have no clue about the Bible, morality or logic for that matter. They are only concerned with electing their felony advocate for tyranny, no matter what it takes, even if it means deceiving Christians into either not voting or throwing away their vote. I was confronted by some over my post last week as if I was making analogies between certain Biblical characters and Trump, even though I was not. But, since I was so confronted, I won’t shrink from the challenge. I will make an analogy.

The best analogy that I have seen for Trump is Sampson. Sampson was a leader of Israel in the times of the Judges. Sampson was therefore a Judge, an appointed leader by God. In fact, from birth, Sampson was the only person in the Bible who was dedicated to be a lifelong Nazirite on all three Nazirite vows by God Himself. It was God who appointed Sampson to deliver Israel from before birth in God’s complete sovereignty. And, what Sampson did with his adult life was highly immoral – far more immoral than what we are discussing today. His story is recorded in Judges 13-16. Sampson was immoral with women and with war. He violated all three of his Nazirite vows, slept with ungodly women, including prostitutes, and violently killed Philistine men over bets, if not for sport. And, yet, He was God’s choice as Israel’s judge and delivered them from the Philistines. If today’s Christians had a say in God’s choice at the time, using today's logic, we would have undoubtedly disagreed with God and protested Sampson’s appointment. And, we thereby would have missed God’s point. Sampson was addressing a greater immorality that was not eclipsed by his own. And, God used Sampson in spite of all of his public shortcomings to deliver Israel. After Sampson had been publicly humiliated at the hands of Delilah, his hair was cut, his eyes gouged out, and he was trotted out for mockery before a full arena of Philistines. Then, he prayed to God one last time. And, God, ever near, answered, restoring His Spirit to Sampson one last time, imbuing him with power such that Sampson was able to pull down the pillars of the arena and kill every Philistine inside. God used the highly immoral Sampson to bring judgement against Israel’s pagan adversary. Yes, Sampson was highly immoral, but he was God’s chosen judge none the less.

America will be judged. And, we are in need of a judge. We have killed far too many innocent babies for America not to be judged. All of the corruption that we are seeing against the will of the people is a direct correlation to how we have allowed the vilest of corruption in the wombs of our mothers and against the innocent lives that God hand-formed there. Of course we are in need of a judge. And, we need a strong judge. We need a judge that is powerful and capable of tearing down that which no other is capable of tearing down. And, we need a judge who can be humiliated, and yet tear down the corrupted pillars of our nation that need to be destroyed. We need a Sampson, just like Israel needed a Sampson, immorality and all.

In conclusion, I leave you with a challenge. If my Biblical analogies disturb you, then submit your own. But, first I challenge you to determine what Biblical character is analogous to Hillary Clinton. To whom would you compare Hillary to in the Bible? Who in the Bible compares with her disdain for God’s laws? Who in the Bible compares with her public corruption? Who in the Bible would destroy a 12 year old rape victim in order to enable the rapist to avoid punishment? Who in the Bible would claim that no person in the womb has rights? Who in the Bible would support globalism at the expense of sovereignty of the American people? I can think of a few Biblical characters that fit the bill. And, if they were sitting on the ballot so analogized, Christians would be much more urgent in opposition. Yes, you have a horrible choice this election. We all agree with that. Having to choose between an immoral, narcissistic and bombastic Sampson and a lying criminal with a Godless platform is tough. But, at this point it really only comes down to two candidates. Either way judgement will come. But, between the two, you are wise to discern which of the two God would have you choose. 

You can purchase the book "Reason If You Will - How To Answer Questions Regarding Faith" by clicking HERE. Profits go to Camp Bahamas. You can also follow @ReasonIfYouWill on Twitter.