The BSA Evolution Further Exposes Modern Progressivism as a Regressive Return to Uncivilized Society

In a civilized society, those with conflicting objectives, worldviews, or opinions openly and respectfully present their different perspectives. Each party will prioritize his or her goals and look for some common ground with the other party, be it a similar goal, shared value, or trade arrangement that is mutually beneficial. If one party wants something the other party has, then that party will either develop the skills and expertise to develop it internally, or they will work out a trade agreement. In civilized negotiations, there will be compromise on both sides, with each party giving up some lesser desire(s) to achieve the greater desire. Successful negotiations are built on trust, mutual respect, and a win/win  or even exchange on both sides with the shared goal of preserving or achieving long term peace.

In an uncivilized society, there is no negotiation or compromise. One party may deceitfully promise concessions with no intention of fulfilling those promises, or they may simply steal what they want by force, which may involve brutal, barbaric, inhumane acts. It is impossible to negotiate with a psychopathic liar, lunatic, or terrorist, for there is no trust, no shared goal, no mutual respect, and no acceptable compromise. Radical jihadists are an example. They will not settle for anything less than a global caliphate that rules the earth.  This goal requires the absolute annihilation of the United States, which they call "the Great Satan", and Israel ("the little Satan").

A wise, civilized person knows that all efforts to negotiate with, advise, appease, or seek peace with a lunatic, terrorist, and/or uncivilized nation or individual is not only pointless, but harmful. (Proverbs 23:9, 26:4) England's attempt to appease Hitler and Obama's Iran deal are examples of how foolish and costly such efforts may be.

What concerns me most about the continued spread and increasing momentum of the progressive worldview across Europe and North America is how it is turning civilized nations (particularly America, which was founded upon Biblical morality and the common goal of preserving life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) into uncivilized, barbaric nations.

What could possibly be more uncivilized or barbaric than the abortion procedure? Yet, in 1973, progressives made this practice, which involves ripping off an innocent child's limbs one by one and then sucking out his or her brains, legal in America. Unwilling to settle for that huge win, progressives have worked to expand abortion into the largest form of genocide in world history with the U.S. government helping fund over a million abortions in the U.S. and around the world every year. Progressives continue to battle against state bans on partial birth abortion, which involves fully delivering a child feet first except for the head and then cracking the skull just before it exits the mothers body. Seven progressive leaning states and the District of Columbia have no state bans on late term abortions.

Progressive professors have written extensively in support of infanticide, insisting it is morally acceptable and at times necessary for progress. We have already seen Britain's socialistic healthcare system hold children like Alfie Evans hostage in hospitals where they let them die while refusing other nation's offers to fly them overseas to receive lifesaving treatment abroad at no cost to Britain. The UK also has no problem leaving the elderly to die since they are viewed as a financial burden. Apparently, some human life (an unborn fetus, a sick child, an elderly person) just isn't as valuable to progressives as that of an elephant or a dog. To return to Hilter and Margaret Sanger's eugenics policies is certainly regressive, barbaric, and uncivilized, but societies readily accepts it when it is reclassified as progressive. There was nothing civilized whatsoever about keynote speaker Michelle Wolf's address at this year's White House Correspondence dinner. Her comments were cruel, raunchy, vile, and crude. She tore apart Sarah Huckabee Sanders as Sarah sat nearby. Similar vulgarities have characterized the progressive event for years, offering no mercy or compromise.

Professor Robert George stated the obvious with this quote: “When students have an opportunity to engage in civil discourse, they don’t feel compelled to engage in uncivil discourse.” However, most secular colleges and universities are going to great extremes to remove the opportunity to engage in civil discourse, primarily by banning differing viewpoints.  With faculty members leaning Democrat at ratios as high as 23 to every 1 Republican (UNC Chapel Hill) or 11 to 1 on average, followed by decades of bullying and persecution to suppress conservative ideas and to expel Judeo/Christian or faculty (Reference: Expelled documentary), and given the banned words lists and systematic indoctrination throughout classroom instruction, Christians and conservatives have little to no voice on college campuses. Deprived of the opportunity to practice civil discourse, students are encouraged to become radical social justice warriors who skip class (or tests) to mourn or protest what they cannot change, even as the outcome of a presidential election. #NotMyPresident Google, Twitter, and Facebook intentionally limit viewer exposure to conservative viewpoints, and/or deny Christian websites permission to advertise. Most mainstream media outlets spin stories, print fake news, or omit any newsworthy story that does not support their progressive narrative. They have become propaganda mills, not reliable news agencies. Every day, progressive thought continues to dominate the internet, marketplace, and all media platforms, apparently hoping to take over the thoughts and steal the hearts of all people everywhere.
When radical progressive groups bring lawsuits against a conservative and/or Christian, the goal isn't simply to right a wrong or fight for justice. Their goal is total destruction. Bakers, florists, photographers, and wedding venue owners have all been persecuted, severely fined, bankrupted, or forced to cease and desist activities that the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect simply because they refused to participate in progressive venues that were contrary to their religious convictions. Business owners in Charlotte, N.C. were forced by local ordinance to allow men in women's restrooms, in direct opposition to their values and the best interests of their female patrons, until the state legislature intervened.  But then progressives from around the nation, including the Obama administration, threatened, bullied, and chastised the state for daring to uphold long held standards to protect the greater majority. The NCAA refused to hold high revenue tournament games in N.C. and various large businesses threatening to locate elsewhere. Even the Attorney General at the time, now the current Governor, secretly met with businesses to put pressure on the Governor and state legislature to overrule H.B. 2, after he had pledged to serve the governor and N.C. residents. In this case, the media played a powerful role spreading propaganda across the nation which also captured negative attention from foreign leaders. Uncivilized people do not allow differing opinions and will bully or destroy to suppress them.

Each of these progressive "victories" was not viewed as a settled case or a compromise. They were merely steps forward toward their goal of totally wiping away traditional American values. They aren't interested in logical or reasonable discourse. Give them an inch, and they will take a mile. They will not stop until they destroy anyone and anything that stands in the way of a complete takeover of our culture. 

The Boy Scouts of America resisted progressive pressures to admit gay troop leaders for a time, but they eventually compromised, hoping to appease their progressive bullies. That was a tragic mistake, however, because once progressives got a foothold, they demanded more. Then instead of seeking to reform the Girl Scouts to make them equal to the Boy Scouts in every way (programming, opportunities, reputation, etc.), the progressive went after the Boy Scouts again, demanding that they allow girls to join their boys' organization. As expected, the Boy Scouts caved again to progressive demands. Then this week the Boy Scouts agreed to change their name to "Scouts", which signals a complete overhaul of the Boy Scout's identity. Soon, the Boy Scouts will wither and die, having contradicted their original and fundamental values, purpose, and oath. Progressives do not agree with the Boy Scout's oath or values. They aren't seeking to be included and assimilated. They want to seize control and destroy anything that builds, nurtures, and protects (in this case, Biblical manhood and morality) what they hate.

Progressives also tend to oppose Christianity and the Bible because it stands in the way of what they intend to accomplish, which makes them useful tools of the enemy of our souls. When one honestly considers what the Bible teaches and the impact it has had throughout history, it's impossible to deny that the Bible played a huge role in civilizing the world. Remove the Bible from schools, the marketplace, and the hearts and minds of citizens, and America will crumble into a hopelessly uncivilized, barbaric nation,not unlike the Mayans, Babylonians, and other pagan cultures of the past. Will we stand by and watch our great country regress into a Nazi regime or a pagan culture that burns our first born children as sacrifices to fake gods carved out of wood and stone or to corrupt dictators who enslave us?

Dear friends, leaders, and brothers and sisters in Christ, do not try to negotiate with uncivilized, irrational people who reject America's founding principles, traditional morality, and the Lord, our Creator God and King. Let us make it our aim, through both words and actions, to share the love, joy, and hope found only in Christ Jesus. He is the only answer to our heart's desire for peace and our culture's plea for civility. Pray for the lost who persecute you. Resist false doctrine. Stand firm in the faith. Hope in Christ. (John 10:10)

Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand;6 do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.7 And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus  (Philippians 4:5-7)

How to Discern What is True in this Deceptive Information Age (Part 1)

Long before the digital information age when basic Judeo-Christian values formed the foundations of much of American culture and life, discerning fact from fiction was far less complicated. Information was limited.  Prayer and Biblical precepts guided family, church, and civil discussions, while authorities were considered to be informed and trustworthy.

Today, information is thrown at us like water from a fire hydrant, except instead of putting out fires, the information ignites and fuels them.  Anyone with internet access can pretend to be an authority on the subject, regardless of age, experience, education, or qualifications, as they post information that naive readers will deem as being as trustworthy as expert analysis.  Conflicting information shapes the internet, especially with regard to religion and politics, and navigating it seems overwhelming at best. Fact checking websites like Snopes, PolitiFact, and Factcheck.org have promised to show us the truth, but they have also been called out for bias or deceptive cover-up.

As moral relativism became more pervasive leading people to reject the absolute truths found in God's word and even the universal moral law, simply discerning moral truth has become confusing for many.  Moral relativists insist that what is right for you does not have to be right for me and vice versa as long as we show tolerance for one another.  But when a terrorist killed 50 members of the LGBT community in Orlando, what seemed right to the terrorist was completely intolerable by most Americans while Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration defended Islam and refused to call it a terror attack even though ISIS proudly took the credit. No one seems to know what is true in the culture, in the media, or even in their own individual hearts.

Now that we are nearing the climax of the most scandalous, outrageous, pivotal presidential election cycle of the century with shocking degrees of corruption, deception, power brokering, and injustice being exposed almost daily through inflammatory, conflicting headlines, Americans often wonder if there is any truth to be found anywhere. Is there anyone we can trust to be honest?  How do we discern what is true in a such a deceptive information age?  How do we teach the next generation to rightly discern the truth?

There are no easy answers to these question, for discernment only comes from God, but there are at least some general guidelines or questions to consider to help encourage critical thought and to avoid common pitfalls that come when we exchange the truth for a lie.   The ability to discern truth is useful in many different contexts, but for the sake of simplicity, I would like to address just two of them:
 
1) Discerning between fact and spin in the media
2) Recognizing false teaching within the Christian church

Receive Salvation Through Christ
In both contexts, Christians must remember that God is the source of all truth and wisdom. He reveals His truth to us through Christ and by the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of those who choose to follow Him. We cannot discern truth apart from Him.

....grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.(John 1:17)

True wisdom is not available to us until we choose to believe that Jesus is the promised Messiah and put all our trust in Him. Then His Spirit begins to guide us according to His truth.

³¹ To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. ³² Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”  (John 8:31-32)

Do not be surprised when the wisdom God gives seems foolish in the eyes of the world, "for the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom" (1 Corinthians 1:25).  Jesus repeatedly called the Pharisees "blind" (five times in Matthew 23 alone) because they were lost, unable to discern spiritual truth. So it was fitting that following Paul's dramatic encounter with Christ and conversion to Christianity, scales fell from his eyes to remove both his temporary physical blindness and his spiritual blindness. The Spirit of God helped him to truly see. (Acts 9:18)

Pray
The prerequisite for discerning truth is salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. The first and most important step as a believer seeking to grow in wisdom and discernment of the truth is to pray.  Ask God to give you the wisdom you need, fully believing that He give it to you generously.  Also pray for an objective mind on issues not clearly addressed in God's word so that you will not let your personal preferences cloud your judgment.

If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. (James 1:5)

Also intercede for others, especially the younger generations who must carry the baton of faith and truth and light after us. 

For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you. We continually ask God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spirit gives,  (Colossians 1:9)

Seek Wisdom Above All Else
We honor and please God when we seek His wisdom over anything the world offers us instead.  Consider how God rewarded Solomon when God offered to give him anything he wanted, and Solomon only asked for wisdom.  

¹⁰ The Lord was pleased that Solomon had asked for this. ¹¹ So God said to him, “Since you have asked for this and not for long life or wealth for yourself, nor have asked for the death of your enemies but for discernment in administering justice, ¹² I will do what you have asked. I will give you a wise and discerning heart, so that there will never have been anyone like you, nor will there ever be. (1 Kings 3:10-12)

Build Critical Thinking Skills Through Guided Inquiry
After establishing that God is the ultimate source of all wisdom and discernment, I would like to offer some practical questions that anyone can use to help recognize deception in the media.  Considering these questions can be very time consuming, especially given how much information we must filter each day, but they will help us come closer to recognizing what is true and what is false.  Knowledge builds upon itself at an ever increasing rate, so as we build upon a foundation of truth, filtering becomes faster and easier as we go.
 
1.  Consider the source of the information.

• Was the information obtained in an unbiased way?  Biased collection methods do not provide reliable results.  (Note: Removing bias from political polls is extremely challenging, while skewing polls on purpose is quite simple.)
• Does the provider have sufficient expertise, firsthand knowledge, and statistical aptitude to accurately collect and present the data?  If the author has had no way of obtaining accurate knowledge of the subject he's addressing, he probably doesn't have any.
• What lurking variables could be influencing the data? Are they stated and reflected in the information presented?
• Does the presenter have a history and reputation of being trustworthy and honest?
• Is the information provider characterized by transparency and a willingness to take questions or undergo validation/investigation as needed? 
• Does the provider of the information have unchecked power that minimizes accountability?  Unchecked power usually leads to both corruption and deception.

2.  Consider the purpose of the published information.

• What benefits (money, promotion, fame, influence) might the provider receive by convincing you to believe the information presented? The richer the reward, the more questionable the information may be.  Follow the money.
• Are the inferences and conclusions derived from the information consistent with the context of the information or has it been manipulated to steer thoughts toward an intended outcome?
• Is the purpose for publishing the information helpful, good, and pure?  Does the purpose honor and respect life, or does the purpose involve anything akin to deceiving, stealing, killing or destroying that which is good?  God is the source of all truth, the creator of life and the giver of all that is good, while Satan is the father of lies who seeks to steal, kill, or destroy that which is good.   If the motives are sinister, the information is likely intended to deceive.  If the motives are pure, reflecting God's good character, then the information is more likely to be reliable. 
• Is the information presented in a way that seems overdone or too convincing?  If so, the provider may be trying too hard to convince you of something that isn't true.

3.  Consider the context of the information.

• Is the information taken completely out of context and used in an unrelated context? (This error commonly occurs when trying to justify wrong choices or opinions using Bible references or legal statutes.)
• Are the conclusions derived from the information consistent within the context in which it is being applied?
• Are any pertinent details conveniently left out of the presentation of the information to lead the reader to a desired conclusion?  Usually, the more details that are provided, the less likely it is that important information is being intentionally left out.  Conversely, too much unnecessary information may be added to distract the reader from the information the provider hopes they will ignore or miss in the midst of all the other details.

4.  Are the conclusions drawn from the data Biblical, rational, plausible, and reasonable?

• Any information that contradicts Biblical truth should be dismissed. God's truth never changes, and He cannot deny Himself.
• If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is and should be dismissed as false.
• If any publication sites original sources, be sure to check the original data. Are the other details surrounding the information consistent with the conclusions made and consistent with other sources already deemed reliable?  Consistency across sources renders the content more believable. (Note: This method of comparing transcripts found in many different regions over a wide span of time was also used to affirm the authenticity and reliability of the Biblical canon.)
• Do the details and conclusions follow a logical progression?
• Are the conclusions from the data consistent with basic economic principles, scientific law, and lessons learned from similar scenarios played out throughout world history?
• Does the author offer you free stuff? Nothing is ever free. It will cost you or someone else dearly in the long run.  Who will pay for it? It is good, right, and fair for them to pay your share? If it is the least bit questionable or makes you uncomfortable, do not assume it is true.
  

5.    Is any reliable counter evidence available?

• Counter evidence must be more verifiable than the information itself to override the information's credibility. For example, the Biblical creation account cannot be overridden by the theory of evolution since neither has been established as scientific law. The theory of evolution certainly has more holes with probabilities far too impossible to take seriously, so while the creation account offers more credibility, empirical evidence using scientific methods cannot prove that which cannot be replicated and can only be accepted by faith.  
• An example of counter evidence would be Comey's FBI investigation summary detailing the findings of the FBI's systematic investigation of Hillary Clinton's email scandal which countered public testimony Clinton made in defense of herself. In this case, FBI documentation detailing her crimes would override her comments, which would have been much more likely motivated out of self-protection that out of a desire to be honest, especially given her history of excessively lying.
• The emails posted by WikiLeaks during the current POTUS campaign, however, have not been presented with any counter evidence.  Despite being embarrassed by the public posting of his private emails which included derogatory comments, Colin Powell never denied them. Debbie Wasserman-Shultz  and CNN Contributor Donna Brazile were forced to resign as a result of WikiLeaks revealing their roles in campaign rigging, which provides further proof of their legitimacy. With evidence to support the validity of the WikiLeaks and no evidence thus far to counter them, they can be assumed to be reliable.

It's impossible to provide an exhaustive list of questions to consider, but as we ask the Spirit to guide us, He will lead us to the right questions to ponder.

I help students build critical thinking skills by using guided inquiry to help lead them to their own discoveries or to the answer for a mathematical or scientific problem problem.  The more they practice applying inquiry to various real life situations, the sharper their critical thinking skills become and the better able they are to derive the right answer.  Similarly, I believe it helps to regularly practice guided inquiry (that is, asking ourselves the types of questions listed above) when presented with conflicting information to help ourselves and those we mentor/teach to grow in godly discernment.

I'll share an example I used with my 12th grade Statistics students to illustrate.  The following graph shows the number of women who died as a result of the abortion procedure using statistics compiled by the National Center for Health Statistics. This graph was published by The Alan Guttmacher Institute in a document entitled Trends in Abortion in the United States, 1973-2000, January 2003.

If you know that Roe v. Wade was passed in 1973, then this graph would lead readers to believe that legalizing abortion resulted in fewer deaths for women, and that is exactly the point that the author was trying to make by presenting this graph. 

After seeking the Lord and praying for His wisdom to guide us as we examine the information, we would then begin asking some of the suggested questions.  Consider the source of the information.  Who is Alan Guttmacher?  What does the Institute named after him do, and what is the purpose for this information?  A quick Google search provide us the following information about Alan Guttmacher:

• He was an American obstetrician/gynecologist who founded the Association for the Study of Abortion in 1964, so he should be knowledgeable enough to discuss death rates for pregnant women receiving abortions. 

So far so good.

•  He served as president of Planned Parenthood and vice-president of the American Eugenics Society.   He founded the American Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians, now known as the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, as a forum for physicians to discuss the birth control pill and other advances in the field. He was a member of the Association for Voluntary Sterilization. The Guttmacher Institute is named after him. In 1973 Guttmacher was one of the signers of the Humanist Manifesto II. 

This second set of information should immediately alert us to his bias is it presents him as being pro-abortion and pro-eugenics.  He is a secular humanist who could not possibly value the sanctity of human life given his life's work in abortion, birth control, and sterilization.  His motivation is clearly to promote abortion as being good for society, so immediately this graph becomes suspect. Biblical truth also leads us to mistrust the information because it is being applied in the context of supporting the murder of innocent babies, something God's word condemns.  Instead of having a purpose that is good, pure, and right, it's purpose is to promote death and destruction.

Next, consider original data and consistency. The CDC publishes all these statistics on-line, so this graph could be reconstructed using data directly from the CDC website. This comparison would show that The Alan Guttmacher Institute did provide an accurate representation of the original data.  The National Center for Health Statistics is supposedly an objective source without any pro-abortion bias, so that cross reference checks out as being valid.

Now let's consider context. CDC data collected for health purposes is being placed in the context of a pro-abortion publication to argue that abortion reduces death rates for women. That may not seem like too much of a context shift, but consider what other lurking variables could have influenced the drop in death rates.  Observe the graph more closely. Why did death rates drop before Roe v. Wade was passed?  That decrease in death rates may account for the decrease after Roe v. Wade.  What would the graph look like if we expanded the time line to back further into history?  These questions could be answered by going back to the CDC data to expand the graph over a longer period of time and by noting related medical advancements by year to establish any possible lurking variables.

By searching the internet for counter evidence, we find that the enhanced graph including pertinent medical details and data going back 25 years earlier is already available, and it presents a very different message.  This graph utilizes the same CDC data but over a longer time line.  It also includes other variables impacting the data and the dates for each.

Source: ProlifeAction.org

This graph shows the most dramatic decline in death rates between 1940 and 1950 and attributes that reduction to the introduction of sulfa drugs (antimicrobial agents) and penicillin (antibiotic used to treat infection).  The graph doesn't site a cause for the rise of the number of deaths around 1960, but the sexual revolution of the 60s and the careless lifestyles likely increased the both the overall number of abortions performed and the risks associated with them.  By 1972, the year before abortion was legalized by the Supreme Court, the maternal death rate during abortion had fallen to 39 per year, less than one per state.  Thus, legalizing abortion cannot be credited with abortion survival rates.

It should be noted that I found this counter evidence on the website of a pro-life activist organization which would certainly introduce biased motives.  The graph was actually used on the floor of the U.S. Senate during hearings on abortion in 1981, but it was not challenged by abortion supporters. 

Given that it provides more information and that the motivations are for life and consistent with Biblical truth, it is deemed more reliable than the first graph presented from a pro-abortion graph.

This exercise was lengthy to illustrate each of the key considerations, but discerning truth is not always so cumbersome.

When discerning between Biblical teaching and false teaching within the context of the Christian church, we have the advantage of the unchanging, perfect, authority on truth, the Bible. The next post will provide tips for determining if a teacher's messages are Biblically accurate or ungrounded in the truth and therefore destructive to the family of faith, leading others astray.

What it Means to Be "Pro-Life" (Part 1): To Love the "Least of These" without Compromise

With Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton (HRC) as the major party candidates for the 2016 U.S. presidential race, American voters are facing a major moral dilemma. Both candidates have shown themselves to be arrogant, brash, deceitful, and self-serving.  Neither adequately reflects the values of his or her party. With Trump's past support of both Democratic candidates and liberal social issues, he seems more like the Democrats' choice for the Republican nominee than the Republican's choice, effected primarily through media steering and crossover voters. Conservative Republicans especially oppose him.  He has an erratic history on abortion issues, but he now claims to stand with his party's pro-life platform.  Yet, the disrespectful and crude comments he has made toward women, those with disabilities, Muslims, and illegal immigrants are making it difficult for compassionate, pro-life people of faith to vote for him with a clean conscious.

While Trump leans to the left of the Republican party platform, HRC leans to the left of the Democratic party, reflecting the anti-Christian, socialistic, "ends justify any means"  ideals of her mentor, Saul Alinsky.  Guided by Alinsky's book, Rules for Radicals, HRC's history of corruption exceeds any elected official before her, at least in the past century, although her husband's scandal list is certainly long enough.  Lies, scandals (22 biggest HRC scandals described here), and corruption have been the most consistent traits of her entire career.  In just the past few weeks, evidence has been brought forth to prove "pay for play" abuses of power as Secretary of State, high stakes bribery and fraud in the way she used the Clinton Foundation to accept large donations from American enemies with deplorable human rights practices and even 96% of her own charitable contributions (tax evasion) under the ruse of charity when almost all of the contributions were pocketed by her nuclear family, multiple counts of felony and perjury regarding her email scandals (full testimony here) putting every American at risk (at least one spy has already been killed).  Recent HRC email releases by WikiLeaks prove that she led the effort to arm ISIS groups in Syria, and lied about it repeatedly under oath even while letting four American patriots die in Benghazi to cover her misdeeds. Yet, justice has not and will not be meted against her because her corruption is so vast that those with the power to prosecute her refuse. Or perhaps she's just employing Alinsky's first rule.  Whatever the case, it's working to her favor.

“Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”   Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, Rule #1

Meanwhile, petty officers like First Class Kristian Saucier who committed much lesser crimes with no impact on national security and no impact on anyone's life whatsoever, are facing jail time.  Imagine how someone with such a heart of corruption will manage national security and utilize taxpayer dollars as POTUS.

Clearly, both candidates leave a bitter taste in the mouths of voters.  The two third party candidates are drawing more support than usual, but both are social liberals and pro-choice providing no good compromise for pro-life voters. Evan McMullin, just entered the race as a pro-life (from womb to tomb) independent candidate, but he entered the race so late, he may not even be on the ballot in some states.

Recently, there has been a push by self-described pro-life or "pro-lives" voters such as Rachel Held Evans to justify a vote for Hillary Clinton by upholding what they consider to be a more enlightened definition of the term "pro-life".  (View rebuttal to Rachel Held Evans' post from a Christian perspective here). Their definition is no different from what "pro-life" has always meant, at least to committed Christians, except for one tragic difference. They emphasize government support or aid programs that support life after birth as being more pro-life than simply opposing abortion itself. For liberal leaning pro-lifers, it is not just morally acceptable, but morally superior to support a candidate and party who are vehement activists for abortion at any stage, for any reason, and with taxpayer funding if that candidate has at any time in her life helped promote aid programs they like or need.  While I have no desire to discredit these programs which may very well be valuable, necessary, and effective (although efficiency, cost effectiveness, and sincere love or compassion are usually lacking when the government gets involved), I do want to point out that the key difference between this liberal view and that of more conservative pro-life voters is that they see these social programs as offsetting the crime of abortion which brutally and painfully dismembers the most vulnerable members of society.

⁴⁰ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ (Matthew 25:40)

This perspective says, "I can still be pro-life and vote for a corrupt pro-choice candidate if that candidate has ever been involved in social programs that matter to me or to those I love or empathize with most."

^"And [Jesus] said to them, 'You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.' " (Luke 16:15)

Unfortunately, those social programs, no matter how wonderful they may be, were not the primary issues touted at the DNC Convention. Making on-demand abortions at any stage of pregnancy convenient and available to all women in the US and abroad is the primary focus of the DNC, beginning with the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, as emphasized during the first day of the DNC convention. The first day of the Democratic Convention seemed less like an American political rally and more like a sacrificial worship celebration honoring Molech in which speakers and attendees celebrated the fact that they threw their babies into the fire (aka "aborted" them) in worship of the pagan god with the hope that the god would give them what they wanted, personal, short-term convenience.

"You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord." (Leviticus 18:21)

Worship of Molech, Hillary, and/or oneself are allowed by the DNC, but Hillary insists that any religious beliefs that stand in the way of expanding abortion must be stuffed and silenced. Hillary, who has proven herself to be above the law, speaks as though she is deity, just like Lucifer himself, who Alinsky attributed in his book.

Abortion Activists attack Christians  (Source: Lifenews.com)

An Aside: Do the Unborn Have Rights?
HRC claimed that the "unborn person doesn't have any Constitutional Rights" according to Roe V. Wade, but the constitutionality of the Roe V. Wade verdict continues to be highly controversial.  Roe V. Wade uses an implied right to privacy not specifically enumerated in the Constitution (the 9th amendment refers these rights to the states and the people) but expressed in precedent cases to override the most fundamental and most valued human right upheld by people around the world throughout history, the right to life.  The Roe V. Wade verdict claimed that a woman's dominion over her body gives her the right to abort while contradicting the 9th and 10th Amendments and in some respects the 14th Amendment.  The Court denied the personhood of the fetus as a way of getting around the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause.  However, medical advancements and ultrasound technology have removed the question of personhood from the debate.  Hillary admitted the unborn's personhood with this statement quoted above, but in so doing, she denied equal rights for all persons. HRC admitted the humanity of the unborn while insisting the right of the mother to choose is more important than the right of the baby in her womb to live. This perspective implies that the value of each individual life is relative such that some lives are more or less valuable than others.  This eugenics mindset is a recurring theme in liberal policy  just as it was the primary point of advocacy for Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood who was highly praised by Hillary Clinton.  The rights of the unborn are still affirmed by English common law, fetal homicide statutes, Embryonic Law, and the ultimate authority on the law for Christians, God's word. (Psalm 139:13-16, Jeremiah 1:5) 

Even though Hillary Clinton's abuses of power are unmatched and despite having a lengthy history of corruption, deceit, fraud, bribery, scandals, treason, and perjury, people still support her.  She has connections to dozens of people (or possibly over a 100) who mysteriously died after becoming involved in efforts to expose her, but people still praise her.  And despite her extreme abortion activism, some pro-life voters still endorse her because they believe short term social programs, especially those they believe will reduce abortion rates, offset efforts to expand an industry that already kills a million babies a year.  This belief that they are taking the moral high ground is rooted in the assumption that pro-life conservatives are anti-abortion only and do not show equal concern for women or for any minority or marginalized people after they are born.  This perception that "pro-life" only means "anti-abortion" has been largely circulated by the left-leaning media, but the notion is false.  Compassionate, conservative Christians are not pro-life because they are anti-abortion.  They are anti-abortion because they are pro-life. We are for all life, regardless of race, ethnicity, sin struggle, economic status, age, or ability, and the goal of this blog series is to prove it! Unlike the progressive eugenicists, we view all human life as equally valuable.  We treasure both children and elders as gifts from the Lord.  We do not rank life on a worthiness scale, for we recognize that each and every life has been fearfully and wonderfully created (Psalm 139:14) for a perfect, divine purpose (Romans 8:28, Jeremiah 29:11). We are not just for life itself; we strive to equip and lead all people to a joyous, abundant life.

"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly."  (John 10:10)

While my disgust with HRC should already be obvious, I am not strongly for any candidate; hence, my moral dilemma.  But I will oppose senseless murdering of innocent children until the day I die, not just for their sake but for the sake of the living, for how we regard the most vulnerable lives within our ability to protect them directly impacts how we value all life. 

This blog series is not seeking to create more political division, for America is certainly divided enough already. The BBC and Pew Research Center described American politics as "more like 'alien tribes' than rival parties....because hyper-partisan news and social media enables them to live in ideological isolation - they don't even have to try to understand it."  In the interest of bringing more understanding, I intend to counter this false assumption by describing the full meaning of "pro-life" from the perspective of those who are first and foremost Christians.  Biblical truth and personal encounters with God lead people like me to a more conservative political approach toward pro-life issues, but we are Christians first.  I hope that by showing how pro-life, conservative Christians care for mothers, families, children, elderly, minorities, and the oppressed, we can begin crossing political boundaries and working together to provide better solutions for more people instead of wasting time and energy bickering. (I realize this goal could prove difficult if HRC continues following Alinsky's model, for he insisted that all life is partisan, but I'm trusting not all HRC supporters feel the same way.)

In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I am all of the following:

• a committed follower of Christ for over 35 years
• a devoted wife to one man for life through the Christian marriage covenant
• a busy mother of active young children
• a former volunteer at various crisis pregnancy centers
• a former volunteer and current "as-needed" adoption presenter for a faith based maternity home for women in crisis who choose not to abort
• the product of an unplanned pregnancy that occurred during Roe V. Wade deliberations who was born too late for legal abortion had that been a consideration
• a former orphan who lived in a foster home
• an adoptee via closed adoption with a personal testimony that screams of God's goodness, grace, and sovereignty

My life experiences have shaped my opinions just as every person's unique life experiences shape theirs.  I have done lots of research, however, and I will do my best to support my points with accurate data, verified testimonies, and reliable video footage.  I hope that by sharing this data and personal testimony, areas of mutual agreement can be found to curb political division and to establish more loving options, services, and support not just for mothers in crisis, but for all who suffer from the same types of trauma, heartache, and desperation which are often rooted in the same unmet need for unconditional love, acceptance, and the absolute truths which are uniquely fitted to fill the deepest longings of the heart and soul.

The next installment will look at loving ways pro-life Christians are addressing those deepest needs to prevent unplanned pregnancy and to support women in crisis both in their current situation and for the long-term.

Fight Political Corruption by Expecting, Demanding, and Praising Integrity

"Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good." (Romans 12: 9) 

News headlines and social media feeds are saturated with depressing, anger inducing reports of massive, blatant acts of political corruption, systematic injustice for the political elite who flaunt the fact that they can commit any number or degree of federal crimes with impunity, arrogant, hot-tempered, angry outbursts, extreme moral failings, total compromise of state and national security, and utter contempt for the law by political parties, current elected leaders, and presidential candidates and running mates. The details are so horrible that even fact checkers are shaking their heads in disbelief as WikiLeaks and FBI investigations prove headlines to be true or worse than anyone imagined. But even more outrageous than all that is that no one seems to care! A reluctant but resigned Clinton supporter attempted to justify for me this bothersome apathy with this statement:

“All politicians break the law - some are just subjected to more investigations to reveal it.... The difference is Democrats tend to pull back on investigations for the good of the country, and Republicans are vipers who believe that when they lose elections, the only way to stay in power is to loosely investigate everything to see if they can find some dirt to discredit their opponents.”

First, we must beware of using absolute words like “all”, “every”, “always”, or “never”. If we assume that ALL politicians are corrupt and will regularly break the law, then how can we expect or hope for decent, moral, wise candidates? In business and in politics, the secret to success is supplying what your customers or constituents demand.  Politicians who give the most voters what they expect will be most likely to win the election (at least in the good ol' days before dead person voting, multi-state residents voting multiple times, ballot machine tampering, intentional miscounts, and a host of other cheating strategies were employed). Candidates may offer empty promises, but when the system functions as it should, those who fail to deliver on the promises made during their campaigns are held accountable and not re-elected.  One has start really LOW to rise to such low expectations, so if we expect a scandal ridden felon or an arrogant bully to run for office, that’s what we will get.

What if we demand honesty, humility, integrity, dignity, and a healthy respect for the law from our politicians? We may not get all that we demand....maybe not ever, but we'll get a lot closer to that ideal if we demand and expect integrity instead of assuming they are all hopelessly corrupt. Hillary knew she could hire Debbie Wasserman Shultz to help lead her campaign immediately after Wasserman Shultz had been publicly disgraced and forced to resign by the DNC for steering the primaries away from Sanders toward Hillary because the people expect Hillary to cheat. Hillary is following the law of supply and demand. She is giving her constituents exactly what they expect from her.

Republicans are not "vipers" because they investigate criminals. The cases being investigated are not frivolous.  The Justice Department should not fund investigations without just cause. But justice demands that investigations be conducted when warranted, regardless of party affiliation, becaues withholding justice is NEVER good for our country. Without justice, there is no law.  When the law is not enforced, either anarchy or tyranny will result.

Legitimate lawsuits have followed the Clinton couple throughout their political lives. If justice had been fully served with the first one or few infractions, then the continuous string of scandals would have been halted. Justice must be fully meted to preserve law, order, and goodness in America. When political elites are exempt from the law, corruption proliferates like cancer.

Those who courageously point out true & accurate (not slanderous) evidences of corruption, injustice, and/or criminal activity for the purposes of preserving justice (and not out of personal vindictive motives), are simply sounding the alarm out of love for justice and opposition to corruption. If we want to see positive change in government, we must shout from the rooftops, “Stop the corruption! Hold them accountable!"  We should be calling our legislators as needed to clearly communicate expectations. We must not vote for candidates who celebrate their own corruption, for in so doing, we would be approving of evil with our apathy and our votes.  When news reporters use rhetoric that fuels hatred and disunity, we must communicate to the company owners our concerns and no longer follow their broadcasts.

Many Christians shy away from calling out wicked behaviors within government, lest they be accused of being judgmental, hypocritical, or insubordinate. "As you judge, so you will be judged", is the mantra often used to silence truth and stop justice.  When Christ returns to judge the earth, do we want him to judge evil as good and good as evil as we have been doing to each other, or do we want Him to judge rightly?

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,
who put darkness for light and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" (Isaiah 5:20)

When we are called to judge (1 Corinthians 6:2, Luke 12:57), we must judge rightly. While we should be careful to first take the plank out of our own eyes before pointing out the speck in our brother’s eye, we are still commanded to hold each other accountable, especially those we elect as authorities over us.

We should not judge those outside of the faith to according to a strict Biblical standard under which they have not submitted themselves (1 Corinthians 5:12), but we most certainly should hold our leaders accountable to the laws of the land. As citizens, they are absolutely accountable to the law, and bribery/corruption used to pretend otherwise must not be tolerated.  As citizens of America and stewards over the earth, we must be discerning and prudent, while praying diligently to God for upright leaders with a heart to serve (not lord over) us.

"Can wicked rulers be allied with you, those who frame injustice by statute? They band together against the life of the righteous and condemn the innocent to death. But the LORD has become my stronghold, and my God the rock of my refuge. He will bring back on them their iniquity and wipe them out for their wickedness; the LORD our God will wipe them out." (Psalm 94:20-23) 

While no one wants to constantly harp on the negative, there is a place for pointing out truth. But how much better is it when we balance out the finger pointing with inspiration and hope? We can instill optimism and confidence by celebrating righteousness.  May we intentionally choose media that exalts what is good instead of peddling what is depraved. Let's actively express gratitude to leaders who take a stand for truth and righteousness. By verbally and tangibly supporting leaders at any level who consistently preserve their integrity, even through hardship and public attacks, we stand for truth and righteousness.

If abortion advocates can get women to publicly celebrate the brutal dismemberment of their own children while still in the womb with the accompanying hashtag #shoutmyabortion, why can't Americans who appreciate decency, honesty, and integrity start an encouraging Twitter hashtag or social media trend that celebrates and lifts up honest, respectable, law-abiding leaders as examples of what we demand from our elected officials?

For example, I cannot thank God enough for placing Justice Paul Newby on  the North Carolina Supreme Court. He is a faithful role model with impeccable character who upholds the law with wise discernment and a servant's heart. #InspiringIncreasedIntegrityinLeadership (Please insert cleverer hashtag here.)

Who do you admire? What qualities do you expect and demand in your leaders? Voice them in a positive way and start a positive trend in the media to counter the negativity. 

Source:  Bing

To those laughing at this post and sighing with deep sarcasm, "Isn't that precious?  She thinks a few goody-goody zealots can change America."  We may seem powerless against the army of evil controlling much of the media and political seats, but the voice for change has to start somewhere. As long as the corrupt voices are louder than those demanding righteousness and as long as we allow bully tactics to push our heads back under the sand, we will get what evil demands instead of what righteousness requires.  Do not be afraid, for if you are in Christ, He who is within you is greater than he who is in this world. (1 John 4:4)

When our children are grown and assume leadership roles in our country, will we hand them a country we forsook out of fear of what others may think, or will we honestly proclaim, "I fought for freedom, justice, and righteousness with all my strength, and I did so without fear."

Have a little faith.

He said to them, “Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.”  (Matthew 17:20)

And even if things don't turn out the way we want them to in America, we can completely trust in the one true God who is working all things together according to His perfect plans and purposes even if we don't understand His ways at the time, for His ways are so much higher than ours. (Isaiah 55:8)   Ultimately, we can rest in the knowledge that the end result is not our responsibility.  God only calls us to be faithful. (Daniel 3) He takes care of the rest.

"Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne;  steadfast love and faithfulness go before you. Blessed are the people who know the festal shout,  who walk, O Lord, in the light of your face" (Psalm 89: 14-15)