News Flash: Nation Going to Hell in A Hand Basket

News Flash follows: Palestinians continued to murder Israelis, using cars, knives and whatever else they can find. When Israeli security forces killed those in the act of slaying their citizens, the Obama administration, and the president himself, equated the two acts. ISIL continues to rape, pillage and behead Christians and Obama remains silent. Meanwhile, an ex-basketball star, celebrated junkie and former reality show husband overdosed on cocaine and sexual enhancements or augmentations in a Vegas brothel, spent several days in a stupor, and the week in headlines. If he fully recovers and if the recent history of our continuing devolving society remains as is, he will be more commended and make more money than he ever has. The above are but three examples…

Are we as a nation going to hell in a handbasket? No, we are going there in glitz and panache definitely not a handbasket. It’s a Stretch Cadillac with a stripper pole extending through the sunroof, “Save the Planet” and “Coexist” bumper stickers, and enough room for a camera crew to capture everyone’s face buried in their cell phones as they post selfies on social media.

Forget the debt. Never mind the Middle East, the piles of bodies in our cities, etc. Screw it all, some precocious urchin is offended! In a world full of troubles, serious troubles, if these are what we focus on we might as well just admit we really have no problems at all. If we’re going to go down, we might as well go down in flames.

The Democratic Party, The Bottom Line and It is Dark

Democrat politicians and Democratic presidential candidates continually proclaim they are standing up for the middle class, for the "little guy," for minorities and other "victims" of prejudice and injustice. They want to defend the fairer sex against the ravages of "the GOP's war on women" and to counteract conservative Republicans' "racism," "bigotry" and "hate." Have you not heard this administration and other DC Progressives say that Congressional Republicans want to "shut down the government," "deny healthcare to women," "give us dirty air and water" and "throw the family Matriarch over the cliff." On every issue, the Left blames conservatives while posing as the protectors of society's victimized underdogs – women, students, blacks, Hispanics, gays, the poor, workers, minorities and migrants. In reality it is the left that is causing most of the "victimization" of Americans it decries.  I contend it is Obama and the secular progressive left that has unleashed wave after wave of havoc and misery on America. From the metastasizing sexual anarchy the cultural Left has visited on a once Judeo-Christian nation; to the rampant family breakdown and fatherlessness leftist policies promote; to the growing violence in urban black communities shamelessly encouraged by the left; to the growing demoralization of the American military as a laboratory for far-left social experiments; to the decimation of the American economy with its rampant unemployment, unpayable government debt and destruction of savings under Obama's leadership – the leftist agenda of today's U.S. government and culture have all but destroyed America. In a word, victimized it.  Yet even while causing such massive chaos and suffering, liberal-leftists merrily– as in a trance – blame it all on conservatives and Christians, the one segment of American society that wishes to "conserve" the moral, spiritual, economic and constitutional foundations of the impressive American success story.  Here is the bottom line: Today's Democratic Party, under sway of the socialist/Marxist ideology that has largely captivated it, is at war with reason, historicity, nature of humankind, common sense and truth – indeed, at war with God and His laws. In fact, the far left cannot operate without violating the Ten Commandments. For example, leftist radicals continually elevate and excuse murder (abortion), adultery (sexual liberation), stealing (wealth redistribution), lying (constantly hiding their real agenda) and covetousness (Churchill called socialism 'the gospel of envy') – thereby wiping out five of the ten Commandments, all in the pretext of fighting for freedom, justice, equality, and the American way. If there is good news, it is that the better we understand the lunacy that has captured us – both as a nation and as individuals – the more clear becomes our means of exfiltration  back to the God fearing nation we once knew, and would know again if we could find the way back.

Effects of Being Brain Dead

I have recently heard it said “they could put Hillary Clinton's brain in a jar in the Oval Office and she would be elected." That being the case, are there not too many people suffering from lack of oxygen to the brain? Are there that many people willing to be made over in the image of her sponsoring corporations? Do you not, as I do, just wish Americans would get out of the sinking boat, throw-up and become nobler. Of Hillary, she is not a contender but more like a pretender. People like SNL, feminists, and far left organizations are making her a contender. It's like a “head on a stick.” I am of the attitude that the media, in all its forms, wake up and do their job before that happens. I know I am dreaming but occasionally dreams do come true. Now, If your professional calling is journalism, fine, remember you have to be the best you can be in the here and now, before America is so entirely transformed and we are left with Hillary's brain in the Oval Office in a jar, because that, for all practical purposes is what we are getting if she were to be elected by a brain dead electorate that was influenced by a brain cell depleted SNL type media. Then again, we as a nation were led to believe “hope and change” would occur under the guidance of one, Barrack Obama. How has that turned out?

Undisclosed Human Experiment is Underway

You may have missed this, but there is a long-running human-trials experiment under way that is being conducted without any of the selected subject’s consent. I know – in the days of full disclosure by governments and institutions around the world, this is shocking – but it’s true.

Since we are nearing the end of the subject-selection phase, I thought you should be made aware of what is coming in the next phase of the experiment. First, however, a little more information about the experiment itself.

Phase 1 of the experiment is designed to separate people into three different groups. Individuals are being allowed to “self-select” which group they want to be a part of. This was allowed for two reasons: 1) If people were allowed to self-select, it was felt this reduced the need for full disclosure, which may have biased the results in the next phase of the experiment. 2) With the world’s problems becoming as severe as they now are, a strong commitment from members of each group to the group’s goal will be necessary to guarantee the best efforts from each group. People work harder and are more inclined to cooperate in a cause to which they are committed.

With that being said, here are the groups. You might give some thought as to which group is the best fit for you, as movement between the groups is still permitted at this time. Once we enter the final phase of the experiment, each person is “locked into” his or her existing group selection. They will then have to live with the results of their group’s best effort. All three groups will be involved in the final phase of the experiment.

Here are the groups, presented in no particular order:

Group 1 is made up of people who want to solve the world’s problems.

• Group 2 is made up of people who want other people to solve the world’s problems.
• Group 3 is made up of people who want an outside solution to the world’s problems.
  As with any collection of people, when you look closely at these particular groups, individual differences arise. For instance, within each group people can be found with varying degrees of commitment to politics, religion or science as their tool of choice to find and implement a solution for a particular problem.
  For instance, science is used as a problem-solving tool in all three groups. Group 1 may support all-out, scientific advancement on as many fronts as possible to find solutions to the world’s problems. They are not concerned with costs or ethical issues.
  Group 2 may feel that science should be used more to benefit people’s day-to-day lives, and may not support the cost of big scientific programs.
  Group 3 may believe that a supernatural solution makes scientific advancement less necessary, and we should use what we already have more effectively. Others in Group 3 may believe that a more advanced civilization will find us and take care of our problems in due course. Thus they do not support the cost of rapid scientific advancement to the same extent Group 1 does.
  You may have noticed that attitudes within Group 1 and 3 are hardening as world events spin further out of control. Group 2 is the great, soft center, which could go either with Group 1 or 3 based on an unforeseen event or calamity.
  It appears that the subject-selection phase of the experiment is almost over. That means the trials are about to get under way. Given world events, this phase of the experiment is likely to proceed very quickly and deliver conclusive results.

Implementation of a Social Classlessness Military

Apparently, the White House is more concerned with using the military to perform social experiments than it is actually keeping American forces strong and ready for war. It is the height of absurdity, especially in this day and age, when threats to our national security abound. Few people question that war is horrid, vicious and sacrificial. In our latest wars, many of the casualties suffered by American troops are a direct result of their having to obey rules of engagement created by bureaucratic mindless politicians who have never set foot on, gazed on or smelled the odor of death on a battlefield. Today's battlefield commanders must be attentive to the media and humanitarians who are all too ready to condemn troops involved in a battle that produces noncombatant casualties, so-called collateral damage.

According to a Western Journalism article by Leigh H. Bravo, Insanity: The Rules of Engagement, “our troops fighting in Afghanistan cannot do night or surprise searches. Also, villagers must be warned prior to searches. Troops may not fire at the enemy unless fired upon. U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present. And only women can search women.” Does this type PC non- sense not restrain or shackle our combat troops in battle needlessly? Is this PC poppycock not harmful to uniformed service personnel involved in U.S combat operations?  Collateral damage and the inadvertent killing of civilians are a consequence of war. Always has been, always will. The question our politicians should ask is: Are our troops' lives less important than the unavoidable collateral damage? I think not.

The unnecessary loss of life and casualties that result from politically correct rules of engagement are about to be amplified in future conflicts by mind-numbing efforts to put women within combat units serving in direct combat roles. Effective Jan. 1, 2016, all branches of the military must either open all positions to women or request exceptions. That boils down to having women serve in combat roles, because any commander requesting exceptions would risk having his career terminated in the wake of the shrieking and accusations of sexism that would surely ensue.

The U.S. Army and the Marine Corps both have experimented and tested force integration and results conclude that combat teams are less effective when they include women. Should anyone be surprised by the findings of male combat superiority? Are young men not teeming with testosterone? Does not testosterone produce hostility, aggression and enmity? Admittedly and expectedly such a physical characteristic produces sometimes-poor behavior in civilian society, occasionally leading to incarceration, but the same characteristics are ideal for ground combat situations.

The most disgusting, perhaps traitorous, aspect of all this is the overall reticence of military commanders, most of whom, despite knowing better, will only publicly criticize the idea of putting women in direct combat roles after they retire from service. This retired career Army officer suggests the Defense of Department and Service Secretaries get together and use objectivity, not PC in determining the roles of females in direct combat roles. Based on my experience (1965-1995), I would submit that roles involving potential and likely close combat between advisories (combatants) be limited to men only. This being the case, infantry, Armor and Special Operations Forces/units should with few exceptions exclude females. If those agency’s mentioned above decide to acquiesce to political pressure and incorporate women into units with direct combat roles, I would caution lowering physical entry standards. Serving in the military requires being both resilient and strong individuals, who must possess the utmost in strength, endurance, and persistence. To enter the military with any less would put the lives of other military members in jeopardy. Not everyone gets this, including Obama, his pawn, General Dempsey, until recently, Chairman Joint Chiefs, who two years ago essentially suggested that senior military commanders should be willing to lower entrance standards for women.

Case in point, the Marine Corps just completed a test  "to see if female officers could successfully complete its rigorous Infantry Officer Course." None of the 29 candidates who took part  in the test passed. But instead of demanding that these woman train harder and try again, the USMC, under pressure from President Obama's "gender-neutral" PC enforcers are pondering degrading standards so as to make it easier for women to make it through the aforementioned course. From what I am able to glean from various news and media sources the Marine Corps is examining each standard to see whether it is relevant to the operation and is gender-neutral. As I see it, the problem is that the standards are already "gender-neutral," in that both male and female alike must be able to meet the same standards of push-up, pull-ups, sit-ups, timed runs etc. Yet the Obama administration still wants to change them. In my somewhat subjective estimation, the Obama administration is fundamentally forcing the military services to implement social classlessness. It is apparent to me and dare I say others, that to them, the military is just like any profession or employment, everyone should have equal outcomes and equality of access regardless of the operation or mission. Anything short of that is not fair. Think about this, is it truly fair? If anything, it is unfair - not only to men, who must contend with the gender standards, but to everybody who must one day fight alongside those who make it into a particular military occupational specialty skill only because of Obama and the liberal left's degraded standards.

Candidates, Issues Confronted, and a Plan

Give or take a few million here and there, with anywhere between 10 and 20 million illegal aliens living in America, the self-inflicted engineered scourge of illegal immigration overwhelming American today is indeed a serious issue that needs to be identified, debated and solved by the presidential candidates of both political stripes. Ordinary Americans of differing origins are keenly tuned to the various solutions proposed by the candidates.

Where a candidate stands on the Second Amendment is also a critical political bellwether among the patriots who are proud members of the NRA and other Gun Owners groups of America. Millions of other gun owners and those addicted to self-evident truth, logic and common sense also give a damn about this life-and-death issue, as we know full well that more gun laws won’t stop the Democrat-engineered bloodbath in Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, Saint Louis and everywhere else they create unarmed and helpless victims.

The Affordable Care Act is a pernicious law that has already sent health-care costs skyrocketing and will ultimately limit access to medical staff and procedures. Concerned Americans want to know how candidates would replace it.

More debate and more solutions are required from the GOP field about how each of them would retool the burdensome, bureaucratic, leviathan like U.S. tax code. Same could be said of dealing with Islamic terrorism. In the Army, we paratroopers used to say “let us kill them and Allah sort them out.” How refreshing that would be to hear a candidate say.

What are the solutions Trump, Fiorina, Carson, Cruz and the other GOP contenders offer to America’s financial accountability? There is the National debt and its accompanying interest rate. The debt numbers are so large that hardly anyone can wrap their head around it. Now, if you’re a generational parasite who does not pay any taxes and only wants more government free greenbacks, this number matters little. Ultimately, our national debt will strangle economic growth, continuing the shrinking of wages and good-paying jobs. That’s not just a conservative opinion, but the reasoned thoughts of the Congressional Budget Office.

Again, what are the solutions Trump, Fiorina, Carson, Cruz, Rubio and other GOP hopefuls propose? Same goes for Sanders, Hillary and Biden. As we have all heard, "talk is cheap."

Christianity in America Now

For generations it's been easy to live as a Christian in America. We have lived in a culture that largely assumed and supported Christianity or at least Christian moral principles. Even the Deists among our Founding Fathers operated within the structural framework and assumptions that under gird  Christianity. Over the past few decades, we have seen those assumptions questioned, derided, and mocked by our pop culture, media, and our courts. What's next for the American Christian?

 While American culture is increasingly hostile towards traditional Christians, it is not quite correct yet to call ourselves a post-Christian society. The vast majority of Americans consider themselves at least in name Christian, but it is safe to say that America as a whole has largely abandoned a traditional, convicted Christianity.

Most American Christians do not know much about the history or core tenets of their faith, and furthermore have no interest in gaining that knowledge in order to defend it. We are often simply more comfortable allowing our Christianity to be a vague concept of niceness and a sure ticket to heaven, requiring little to nothing of the believer. Many modern American Christians are better categorized as adherents to moralistic therapeutic deism - looking for meaning not in the death and resurrection of Christ for our sins but in the warm embrace of some great senile benevolence in the sky.

Given the increasing American antagonism towards traditional Christianity, our next few years will likely see a more obvious separation between the nominally Christian and the convicted Christian. Nominal Christians will likely become less convicted than ever, ready to dismiss any part of the Bible in order to fall in line with the thinking of the masses. Convicted Christians, on the other hand, will be forced to embrace more tightly and more publicly the truths of Christianity in the face of the culture that rejects them. Christians have an obligation to be a light to the world around us. Forsaking that obligation goes directly against the gospel, and neglects the reality of Christ's reign: "For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death." -1 Corinthians 15:25-26

So what does the convicted Christian do individually? Embrace Christ first and foremost, prior to any political or cultural commitments. Be willing to look like a fool in the eyes of the world. Work to preserve and pass on Christian community. And love your neighbors, your God, and His Word.

Martyrdom of Christians in America Has Begun

Life or death was determined by the answer to a single question: are you a Christian? That was the question asked by an anti-Christian gunman who stormed into an Oregon Community College classroom and preceded to shoot in the head those who affirmed they were Christians. Eyewitnesses substantiated the aforementioned.

According to reports I saw on Fox News, the shooter was lining people up and asking if they were Christians if they said yes, then they were shot in the head. If they said no or didn’t answer, they were shot in the leg. The point is, Christians were martyred for their faith, here in America. A fact mostly ignored by most of the Mainstream Media and the White House. President Obama’s behavior in the aftermath of the massacre was candidly not very presidential. Instead of calling for religious forbearance he delivered an unbalanced diatribe or more appropriately, a rant on gun control. And Mr. Obama was correct in his assumption that “Somebody somewhere will comment and say Obama politicized this issue, well, this is something we should politicize.” That someone is me. That somewhere is here, Southeastern North Carolina. Indeed you did, in fact politically publicize the carnage. Is not limiting Second Amendment rights part of Obama’s agenda?

Based on Obama’s remarks, one can surmise, it’s politically incorrect to address the persecution of Christians. Do you suppose as this writer does, that could explain why the White House has expressed less than inflamed ire over the near-genocide of Christians in the Middle East? And that could also explain why his administration has failed to secure the release of an American pastor being tortured in an Iranian jail. These days “lambs being led to the slaughter” is not exactly a politically correct narrative.

Imagine the courage it took for our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ to stand, all the while knowing that to do so would require the ultimate sacrifice. If there be any consolation for those families and friends of the martyred, they can take solace in knowing that after those slain took their last breath on earth, they took their first breath in Heaven.

Trumps Second Amendment Position Paper

In his second policy position paper, presidential candidate Donald Trump called for an expansion of gun rights in America. In the document published on his campaign website, Trump stated: “The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.” He added: “It’s been said that the Second Amendment is America’s first freedom. That’s because the Right to Keep and Bear Arms protects all our other rights.”

In that light, the candidate called for at least three major changes: National Right to Carry: “The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so its common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving – which is a privilege, not a right – then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.”

Military Bases and Recruitment Centers: “Banning our military from carrying firearms on bases and at recruiting centers is ridiculous. We train our military how to safely and responsibly use firearms, but our current policies leave them defenseless. To make America great again, we need a strong military. To have a strong military, we need to allow them to defend themselves.”

Background Checks: Update the national background check system. “There has been a national background check system in place since 1998. Every time a person buys a gun from a federally licensed gun dealer – which is the overwhelming majority of all gun purchases – they go through a federal background check…“Too many states are failing to put criminal and mental health records into the system – and it should go without saying that a system’s only going to be as effective as the records that are put into it. What we need to do is fix the system we have and make it work as intended. What we don’t need to do is expand a broken system.” Trump also stated his opposition to gun and high capacity magazine bans. “Gun and magazine bans are a total failure. That’s been proven every time it’s been tried. Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like ‘assault weapons,’ ‘military-style weapons’ and ‘high capacity magazines’ to confuse people…The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own,” according to the plan.

Additionally, the candidate advocates reforming the nation’s mental healthcare system. “All of the tragic mass murders that occurred in the past several years have something in common – there were red flags that were ignored…We need to expand treatment programs, because most people with mental health problems aren’t violent, they just need help.” Indeed, we need real solutions to address real problems not Obama and the liberal left grandstanding or pushing their political agendas.

When it comes to Islam...Why the Silence

When it comes to Islam, sometimes it seems as if the media lets non-essentials crowd out the truth. Consider the uproar raised by the media in the wake of some controversial remarks. Recently a man posed a question and directed several other comments to GOP president candidate Donald Trump. The remarks were made at a town hall meeting. The unknown male questioner stated that America has a problem with Muslims and our sitting president was a Muslim (or words to that effect). He also alleged that Obama was not even a natural born American. Did not liberals and national media immediately zero in on the factual errors in the anonymous questioner’s query? However, what’s interesting is that, while the liberal left and mainstream media jump at the opportunity to attack Trump and an ill-informed questioner, it steadfastly refuses to ask some difficult questions that underlie the concerns millions of Americans have about President Obama’s failure to confront the very real problem of radical Islam. What about the actual problem of radical Muslims training to kill Americans? The media is very concerned about someone being misidentified as a Muslim and spends hours of coverage on it, but shows little interest in actually identifying Islamic terrorism, which is far more dangerous than an ignorant question-and-answer session on the campaign stump.

Though President Obama has been baptized as a Christian, he does govern in such a way that seems more pro-Muslim than pro-Christian. With his words, Obama seems to favor Islam over Christianity at every turn. Has not Obama claimed the Islamic State is not Islamic because no real Muslims would do what they do? At the National Prayer Breakfast, he tried to tweak Christian noses by dredging up the Crusades – which, for the record, officially ended in 1291 (Look it up). Obama says he is a Christian. Rumors that he is actually a Muslim persist not because of bigotry or racism, but because of his domestic and foreign policies: If he were secretly a Muslim, it is unlikely that he would govern in any significantly different way. Although the unknown questioner made some extravagant avowals, there is still an important question at issue: How real is the threat of radical Islam? I dare say, very real. And political correctness, embraced by many in our culture, simply masks that reality. Did not Osama bin Laden recruit Muslim soldiers for international jihad? Their text was a “180 page manual, ‘Military Studies in the Jihad against the Tyrants,’ which included chapters on counterfeiting, weapons training, security, and espionage. ‘The confrontation that we are calling for with the apostate regimes does not know Socratic debates … Platonic ideals … nor Aristotelian diplomacy,’ the manual begins. ‘But it does know the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine gun.’” Do not Ideas have consequence? Some of these ideas are dangerous. Yet to our liberal minded politically correct friends, it is almost as if Islamophobia is just as much of a threat as radical Islam, only in a different way. That’s absurd. Are there not problems associated with radical Muslims in this world? Why not be honest with ourselves and admit there are inherent evils as they pertain to radical Islam and its followers. The earlier we are honest about that, the nearer we come to solving a problem that will not go away of its own volition.