Cross Streets

stuff about stuff

Political Theater, Why The Dems Owning The House Is Not As Bad As It May Seem

We are living through a time in history that’s fairly common given our nations polarized state. It is a time when a congressman or senator can vote for whatever he thinks will get him attention with no fear of it being passed. You may remember a few years ago that the Republicans voted to repeal Obamacare. How many times did they vote for that? I don’t know… more than once? Several times? It didn’t matter because it was nothing more than theatrics. They knew it would be vetoed. We now know this (I brag. I knew it then) because their tune changed when they gained control of Congress and the Whitehouse and their votes could actually change policy.

Now the tables are turned with the same result. Trump is in the Whitehouse, and the Dems own the House Of Representatives. So they can vote for the most outlandish schemes imaginable to Karl Marx himself knowing that it will never leave the lower chamber. The same is true for the Republicans in the Senate. They can vote to end infanticide resting assured that it will still be legal to allow babies to die after botched abortions when the sun sets that evening.

This is not the best scenario, but then again it’s not the worst. The worst would be if the Democrats could vote for all the communism they wanted and get it passed into law. Obamacare showed us that the Supreme Court, with all of its “conservative” appointees, can’t be relied on to ensure that leftist laws are constitutional. It is, after all, a living and breathing document, and so is, therefore, a changing, morphing-according-to-the-whims-of-the-moment document.

The best scenario would be the replacing of the pro-infanticide, state-worshiping, homo-love “Republicans” with constitutional conservatives and then the gaining of a majority in Congress along with a truly conservative president. Not that I hold out hope for such a thing. Our politicians are downstream of our culture, and there’s no way our wicked culture could bear the ramifications of our constitution.

So for now, there’s gridlock. Nothing significant is going to get done. So we can rest for now that, even though our liberties won’t be being restored, they won’t be further eroded. And our politicians can put on a spectacle for us of what they want us to think they actually believe.

 

 

Advertisements

In Defense Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

You might remember a news story some years ago about the runaway bride. It was about a woman, Jennifer Wilbanks, who disappeared herself to avoid her upcoming wedding. The linked wiki article has this little snippet within:  “…[her disaperance] sparked a nationwide search and intensive media coverage…”  Given that it’s not all that rare for someone to disappear, it struck me at the time that the media coverage actually was so intensive. But I didn’t have to wonder why. Her picture will explain the reasons better than I ever could.

Screen Shot 2019-03-17 at 11.34.18 AM

This affirmed something that I already knew and assumed that everyone else did too. Beauty sells, especially big-eyed damsel beauty. It also affirmed something else that I already knew, which was that the “news media” is more entertainment than information. These suspicions were affirmed with subsequent stories. There was the young beauty, Natalee Holloway, who was murdered in Aruba, and the trial of Jodi Arias that mesmerized the world. What in reality were blips in real news became entertainment in the news media because again… and this is key, beauty sells.

Enter the young, beautiful Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Screen Shot 2019-03-17 at 12.22.43 PM

who ran against this guy, I don’t know… Joe somebody in a 2018 congressional primary.

Screen Shot 2019-03-17 at 12.26.58 PM

One of my best pieces of writing–I think anyway–addressed what I called the end of the information revolution. In it, I made the case that critical thought based on information had steadily given away to feelings and emotion in an increasing number of Americans. I ended the article with this paragraph about Barack Obama:

This revolution was not about Barack Obama, nor was it about conservative versus liberal ideology.  The name and face of the man in this past election is irrelevant, as it will be in the next.  What is relevant and revolutionary is the ability of someone unseen to create an image with any smart looking and sounding face through the manipulation of emotions and feelings through entertainment, social, and news mediums, while at the same time quelling critical thought in the majority of the voting population.  What had been the minority has now become a majority.  There is now a new frontier before us.  The only question is, where will the image manipulators take us now?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is no different. She is the beautiful Furiosa of Mad Max Fury Road. The Warlord leader of this dystopian world only allows his thirsty subjects to have a little water, just enough to keep them alive and dependent on him. But Furiosa takes over and, we presume, simply opens the water spigot and lets the water flow.

We, the audience, are not informed of how much water the warlord had. A critical thinker would wonder about such things given that they’re in a desert wasteland. Ah but critical thought pales in comparison to the feelings one gets by unleashing all that water. But as it concerns Cortez, it’s not about water. For her and her constituency, it’s an unending supply of cash that she’s going to overcome the conservative warlords who are hoarding it for control and open the valves wide open. It’s all a noble cause in my opinion… IF, there really was an endless supply of cash. But let’s not think about that.

Cortez is a product of her environment. She believes what she has been told and she sees herself as a white knight doing battle against strong forces of evil. She sees enough in her experience to confirm her uncritically constructed biases. She is smart enough to think on her toes and give answers that appease the only people on the planet that she needs to appease, which is the relatively few people in the 14th district that voted for her pretty face and the free cash that they believe she will justly wrest from the wealthy, because after all, it is owed to them just because they breath.

As for me, I just assumed from the beginning that she won because she was pretty, and was otherwise no more harm than her ideological twin Joe what’s-his-name. It is no surprise to me that she, like most of her peers, is ignorant of government and economics. But when someone like this proposes sweeping legislation after a weekend with some friends and staff, we can know that she had nothing to do with it, but instead, she was just the pretty face on the cover.

That said, I encourage you to take a few minutes and watch this video. It explains the movers behind the pretty face, movers much more dangerous and cynical.

 

Note: I am not a conspiracy theorist. I reject such nonsense as just that: nonsense. This is not a conspiracy theory video.

 

 

I’ve Had A Change Of Heart

 

Here is a youtube video that I saw on Facebook. And there was a time not that far in the past that I would have agreed with these men, though in the back of mind I would have had an inkling that something about it wasn’t exactly right.

 

I’ve learned that the best way to discern what exactly it is that our inklings are speaking to us about is to put what is causing the inklings under the light of scripture. At the 41 second mark, the fellow with the guitar begins to speak, and what he says is not only wrong, it is contrary to scripture. A man is not to “give deference” to his wife, and he most certainly is not to give deference to a female stranger. He is not to “bow his head” to her, and she does not “have more jurisdiction” than him.

The Bible commands husbands to love their wives and wives to respect their husbands. There are simply no scriptures to support what this man says. He appeals to the traditions of men (my father did it and my grandfather did it) which are the very traditions that have brought us the toxic feminism that we currently find ourselves immersed in.

The picture of a man and wife is a type and shadow of the picture of Jesus and His bride. Can we imagine Jesus telling his Bride, the Church “whatever you want, you got it, without question?” Does Jesus bow his head to His Church, and does he show deference to her? Of course not.

These men seem to think that this behavior is the reason that masculinity has gotten a bad name. I disagree with this point as well. Masculinity has gotten a bad name because feminism is the new cook in the kitchen. No man can ever become subservient enough to appease feminism. Subservience to women only disgusts feminists more with masculinity. And for the young man looking for a bride, although deference and submission will get him a pat on the head, it will also ensure him that the girl he has his eye on will be more attracted to his masculine friends.

I don’t, as a rule, treat women any different than I treat men. I don’t open the door for them in any ways that would be different than how I might open the door for a man. I don’t protect them as a rule in any way different than how I would protect any other human being. That is my change of heart. But it’s not because I’m buying into feminism that I have changed my views, or because I’ve become less masculine. On the contrary, it is because I have rejected feminism lock, stock, and barrel that I have changed them.

 

 

If It’s The Right Issue, Single-Issue Voting Can Heal America

Single-issue voting gets a bad rap, and rightly so most of the time. But when it comes to abortion, even though it’s a single issue, it encompasses all others. Tell me if a politician is pro-life or not and I’ll tell you with a reasonable amount of accuracy where that politician stands on almost all other issues be they fiscal or social. This means that I don’t have to do a lot of time-consuming and confusing research when it comes election time.

It’s also a win-win for candidates and their supporters. It is for good reason that pro-abortionists don’t like to talk about abortion. For one, we all know that what we’re talking about is the legalized slaughter of the most defenseless among us. Even the pro-abortion candidates, when forced into the topic, would rather talk about the mother’s choice rather than what that choice entails. They’d rather talk about women having control of their bodies while hiding the fact that there is another’s body residing inside. They try to pretend that the baby is not a person, but even if they have really believed that it’s not, the latest rounds of legislative breakthroughs have shown us what we have always suspected anyway: that they know and have known that what they’re advocating for is legalized murder.

This is why you can depend on pro-abortion politicians to change the subject. They want to make the pro-life folks look like heartless meanies by talking about government handouts, homosexual marriage, “separating families” and how evil corporations are, even though, ironically, those evil corporations support the same things they do.

That’s why, when I’m talking politics, I talk “abortion.” If the pro-life candidate wins he will represent my views on just about everything else, at least as much as I can expect him to given that he must represent all. And, on the flip-side, if the candidate is a pro-abort I can safely depend on him to govern against my wishes on every issue.

So in many ways, politics has become very easy in these confusing times as long as you have a choice between a pro-abortion and a pro-life candidate.

 

The Real Battle In The Government Shutdown Is Not Over​ A Border Wall

The so-called government shutdown looks on the surface to be the same stuff, different day. But it isn’t… unless Trump and the Republicans collapse like cheap lawn chairs, the way we’re used to seeing them do things. If that happens, then yes, same stuff different day.

At first glance, it would seem that this is about a border wall. But it’s not. The border wall is only the catalyst. The real issue is power. And to put a finer point on it, the real issue is the media’s power. What this battle will determine has ramifications that far exceed a wall. The real question is, will the “news-media” be able to pin this shutdown on the Republicans in the eyes of independents? The reason we don’t know the answer to this is because the Republicans have never stood. They always assumed that the media could and would win. I’m not so sure.

You will remember not that long ago when Obama was in office that it was the Republican Congress that shut the government down, or so the narrative was supposed to have been. Today it’s the Republican president who is shutting the gov. down. That’s always going to be the narrative. All bad is always the Republican’s fault.

There are two factors that promise that this will be a long and drawn out ordeal. One is the Democrat’s smug confidence that the media will convince independents to swing left and punish the Republican Party at the polls.

The other factor is that Trump is determined also. His re-election might well depend on him winning this battle. That, plus I think he’s convinced that he really does have the nation’s best interest at heart. I don’t see either side folding any time soon. The days will become weeks, and the weeks will become months, and the captive paychecks of a multitude of government workers who can’t go indefinitely without them will become the supplanting issue soon enough. There must be pain and that pain must be laid at the feet of conservatives for the big Democrat win in 2020.

Historically, the dems have seen these continuing resolutions as a win-win. They either get to advance their agenda, or they shut the government down and let the media machines trash their opponents for the pleasure. The only question that I have at this point is, will Trump be able to circumnavigate the media? The State Of The Union Address would have been a great opportunity to do just that, but the dems cleverly shut that down too. (Will they pay a price for it? Who knows? The independents will answer in 2020 should it last that long.) Facebook controls what people see, so that’s not an option. Besides that, the whole nation is not on Twitter and FB anyway, and the media can easily black Trump out. Trump has his work cut out for him.

In the meantime, expect the propaganda machines to operate in overdrive. It is, after all, their battle.

 

 

 

The “Social” Gospel

Screen Shot 2018-09-08 at 10.36.41 PM

The Art Of The Verbal Dance Demonstrated​ By Tim Keller​

In this older video below, we have the final few minutes of an interview of Tim Keller by professor David Eisenbach from Columbia University. The professor had written a book “…about the gay rights movement because [he] was appalled by the oppression and the discrimination against homosexuals in [his] America.”

Eisenbach pushes Keller hard. He is sober, straightforward, and keeps pushing his point. His disposition is, I must say, refreshing while Keller is clearly uncomfortable seems to use humor as a defense.

 

The first question is a good example of question begging. “What do so many of the churches have against homosexuals… ?” Keller could have simply answered with one word. “Nothing.” It’s the churches who do not preach the gospel to homosexuals that have something against them. The “gay rights movement” that Eisenbach spoke of, however, is a different story. Individuals and movements are not the same things. Churches ought to stand against any movement that seeks to glorify sin because to do so is love.

Keller also says that the Bible has reservations about homosexual practices and that the Bible says, “Homosexuality is not God’s original design for sexuality.” I don’t how else to put it than that Keller is being deceptive. He continually attempts to bring in love, because, as we know in these times, such topics are safe. Very safe. And they’re easy too. It might surprise many that Jesus didn’t talk that much about love. He did talk a lot about repentance, however, which, considering Man’s condition before a holy and righteous God, was one of the most loving things he could have talked about.

You can bet that Eisenbach knew what the Bible says about homosexuality. And he knew he was forcing this poor preacher into a corner. And he knew that Keller was squirming, and if he didn’t enjoy watching someone he hated squirm, he missed a wonderful opportunity to do just that. Keller would have looked stronger and more loving too if he would have simply laid it down straight for this poor professor. But he didn’t. I wonder why? I know he knows better.

One Way To Know If You’re Making An Impact For Christ

My daughter told me about this couple. They are two homeschool girls who have set up a video blog called “Girl Defined” on YouTube. Their target audience is teenage Christian girls. Here is a sample:

But the real proof of the impact they’re making is in the comment section. It was Dennis Prager who said, “No one hates like a liberal.” I would personally one-up him on that with, “No liberal hates like a feminist liberal.”  There is consistency in the hate, however. It is all self-righteous, as in, “Hate who we say to hate or you’re a hater, and love who we say to love or you’re a hater.”

And if that’s not enough proof, check out the Youtube feed for examples of even more self-righteous hate, the very kind of real hatred that Jesus said that His followers would have to endure. Way to go girls!

Regarding the video above, look at what the schools are doing as it pertains to modesty.

365 Reasons To Homeschool

 

The Dead Judge No One

Geoffrey R. Kirkland of “vassal of the King” wrote a piece on responding to those who accuse street preachers of pushing people away from Jesus. Personally, I,m of the mind that this fearful thinking comes from the personal, Jesus-is-kinda-like-my-boyfriend-only-not, feminist-driven theology of our current zeitgeist. It is an unbalanced theology that ignores truth while laying mercy and love down as thick as molasses. It also raises Man up to a point of deserving God’s love. Salvation is a two-way street in this theology. There’s the one who needs salvation, who, except for a few flaws, is otherwise a good person deep down. And then there’s God, who looks through all the outer crud to the beauty inside each person, and pines away wishing that inner person would come to his senses. The fact that Man is Ephesians 2:1-3 is foreign. Fear is the result. Fear that man will be driven away from God, even though that would be impossible because he is already as far away as he can possibly get.

I love to see street preachers. I can remember walking past them as an unsaved man and feeling fear, a good sort of fear, a Biblical sort of fear to be exact. I was afraid of being judged by the almighty God that I knew existed and at the same time hoped didn’t. Some plant, others water, that sort of thing.

Anyway, here is Kirkland’s list:

  1. Dead sinners can never be pushed further away from their already existing state of being enemies of God and under the wrath of God.  —  The fact that someone would think that an evangelist could push a sinner further away from Jesus assumes that the sinner isn’t in the worst possible situation. But the Bible would state otherwise. Anyone outside of Christ lives in darkness, is an enemy of God, and remains under God’s wrath. No one can be pushed further from Jesus Christ — no one.
  2. No one can push someone away from Christ by being bold with gospel proclamation. — Bold evangelism does not push people away. What keeps people (who are already far away from Christ!) from coming to Christ is not a bold-hearted evangelist but their own inability to believe and their own unwillingness to humble themselves and come to Christ for salvation.
  3. The assumption behind such a claim is that man has control of or the ability to choose God. — Such statements assume that the rebellious sinner who is dead in his sin somehow is able to draw closer to God in his own strength. No one seeks after God (Rom 3:11).
  4. This claim presupposes that the evangelist can do something by his method or technique or manners or presentation to win and woo people to Jesus Christ for salvation. — The power to save is not in a method or step-by-step process, but the power of God is the message of truth.
  5. To follow the example of Christ, believers must be compassionately urgent in evangelism. — Jesus came to earth & His mission — his purpose! — was to preach to the cities and call men to repent and turn to God to be saved! This is why He came (Luke 4:42-44)!
  6. No one is more urgent and passionate in evangelism than God Himself. — All through the Old Testament, God repeatedly calls Israel, Judah and sinners to return to Him for salvation (just start in Isaiah 1 and keep reading from there!).
  7. No evangelist can ever do something to make someone more receptive to the gospel. The fundamental issue remains the same: the heart is dead & only God can give life. — There’s no magic trick that makes people more ‘saveable’. Souls are dead till God sovereignly awakens and gives life — all by grace through the proclamation of the Word & call of the Spirit!
  8. That which saves a soul is the almighty power of God that brings regeneration as the Word of God goes forth faithfully. — Evangelism is never (ever!) a failure when the truth of the gospel is faithfully presented. Conversion is God’s work. He saves. We must preach & trust Him to do the saving, heart-changing, converting work that only He can do. Speak truth & trust God!

On Faith

I was exploring the idea of faith because I realize that, not only do I struggle with faithlessness, I live in a world that struggles with it.

The word faith has been bastardized as of late. Can I just say that? It has morphed from a trust that God is sovereign to positive, if-I-believe-hard-enough-I’ll-get-that-material-idol-I-so-long-for thinking. How does this bastardization play itself out in everyday life? Here are a few examples off the top of my head:

  • God can’t superintend his Word. There’s a lack of faith that God can give oversight to the preservation of His Word, so there is doubt that what is being read is trustworthy. This lack of faith is akin to, “Hath God said?” and this very question, therefore, is the refrain of our age. The feelings go some like this: God wanted for us to know what he requires of us, but Man corrupted it, and god was helpless to intervene.
  • God cannot preserve his planet. There’s no faith that God can preserve the environment in which he created for us to live. This plays itself out in foolish beliefs by those who should know better, that Man is overpopulating his planet and using up all the resources. There’s no faith, only a belief in a little god who is doing his best but needs our help desperately to ensure that his creation survives.
  • God cannot regenerate. There’s no faith that God can take a sinful human being and make him a new creature. So because of this little impotent god, man has to step in and affirm sinful desires. But for some reason, it only affirms the popular sinful desires. It must remain silent on other less popular sinful desires, unless someone commits the sin of not affirming sinful desires, at which point there is hell to pay.
  • God cannot provide. There’s no faith that God can provide for his own their needs. So a Secular Humanist education is lifted up to the high place. Children are run through the mill learning about anti-Christ philosophy, Godless history, Godless social studies, godless science, godless sexuality and a whole host of other godless worldview propositions so that they can earn that living when they grow up. God is just too little to make it work any other way.
  • God cannot be relevant. There’s no faith that God’s Word and His truth is relevant to this generation. So since God is not relevant, Man must make him relevant by making him look more like the Godless culture. The Christian must get tatted up and dressed down or he will not be listened to, because the god he worships is basically a has-been.
  • God is shameful. Man thinks highly of himself. Man sees himself as deserving of the love of the creator if such a being actually exists. So to let it slip that such a man is under the judgment of God is more than Man can handle. Where’s the love in doing that? The faithless must hide such truths therefore under an alternate message because the little wimp of a god that he worships can’t cut to the heart with his words, and cause conviction. “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life” has to be the message. Who wants to convict anyway? How many people out there want to be convicted? That’s a bad plan from the outset. Affirm, affirm, affirm is a better plan, then we don’t have to be ashamed of a God who would actually flood the earth and kill all on it save a few.
  • God cannot sustain His bride. The Church of Christ is going to be extinct unless we change to accommodate the current zeitgeist, or so we’re told by the faithless. God can’t do it. So we’ll have to, and here’s how. Get rid of God’s law, because ours is better anyway. Stop holding people to account. Just love, love, love. Be inclusive, and diverse, and socially just.
  • God cannot hurt you. Gone is the faith that sees God as almighty, all-powerful, vengeful and wrathful. There’s no reason to fear God. He’s really not big enough, or rotten enough to disagree with our strongly held beliefs on what is righteous. Dispense with the God of the Old Testament. We’ve got Jesus now, and he’d never hurt anyone.
  • God cannot order humanity. There’s no faith that God created roles for humanity. No! We are all isolated individuals with differing inconsequential anatomies. First, there’s no difference between men and women. Then men can become women by mere choice. Children don’t need to honor their parents, parents need to honor their children instead. Wives don’t need to obey their husbands, rather, husbands need to obey their wives. Elders can’t tell me what to do! Or how to live. Who do they think they are anyway?

This is faithlessness friends. And in the same way that ethics is a major concern in a world that has essentially dispensed with ethics, faith in God is a major concern in a Church that has dispensed with faithfulness. We hear a lot about faith. Will he heal me. Will he get me that job. Will he prosper me. Will he slay me in the spirit or make me laugh for an hour. Will he make my folly spiritual?

I start my thinking in these times with the confession that something is wrong. I don’t assume, given that assumption, that the problem is always elsewhere. I’ve been guilty of every one of these examples of faithlessness at one time or another, to some degree or another, in some form or another. It is my belief that one of the problems we have with faith is that we haven’t identified our faithlessness in applicable ways.

 

See also:

 

Post Navigation