ARE THE NO KINGS RALLIES JUST A WARM-UP? PLUS, AN UPCOMING SERIES THAT IS NOT COMPLETELY UNRELATED.

King David Playing the Harp by Gerard van Honthorst

You may have heard of the "No Kings" protests. They seem to think that President Trump is acting like King Trump. I personally believe its because he's doing what he said he'd do (politicians aren't supposed to do that, are they?) 

The biggest issues that are driving that are the views on illegal immigration and transsexuallism. Sorry, but mind translates these respectively as condoning law-breaking and as telling God He goofed in creating us. 

Before I go further, I don't consider myself a MAGA fan; I might even identify more with the label "Deplorable." I have questions on how Iran is being handled or some of his other policies. Like every other President between Washington and whoever we elect in 2228 (no, not a typo) he has both good and bad points. 

In reality, both major parties act like they're monarchs. We currently have a country divided, with both sides wanting their rights protected to the point it removes protection of the rights of their opponents. My opinion, but are any No-Kings crowd ready to stand up for me not using the right pronouns or not wanting my taxes to pay for Planned Parenthood or make sure that we keep the bad guys from crossing our border?

It hit me, though. The reality is President Trump is just a President, not a King, and answerable to the true King of all the earth, Jesus of Nazareth. Former VP candidate Sen. Tim Kaine argued that he felt better with rights coming from the Government preferable to being given by a creator. Could it be that a lot of our leaders as well as a good portion of U.S. citizens want to be accountable only to themselves and not the King of Kings and Lord of Lords?

Yes, I ended on a question. I'm not sure I've got the answer. Do you have it? Please let me know.

But now, I'll look at my plans for the blog. Yes, it's mostly reviews and a few opinion pieces like this one, and I'm not finding time to do interviews. But I do have in my mind a series. It's inspired by a comment the Southern Baptist University's Presiden Al Mohler said on The Briefing, that many believe creating art requires transgression, both in their work and in their lifestyle. It crosses over into my interest in the arts, which is a major reason for me starting this blog, and thoughts on heroes (super and otherwise). So I'm going to hopefully have that possibly in May, or maybe in June or July (no later than that). 

Let me know what you think. I'm looking forward to writing the series, and hope you are to reading it as well.

MOVIE COMPARISONS: "FIREFOX" (1982) AND "BLUE THUNDER" (1983)

 

Name the movie. It's about a super airbound war-machine, with technology so advanced the pilot could as quick as a thought launch an attack. The hero, who has war induced Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, knows his job is to steal that machine to keep the bad government to use it for their nefarious purposes. Hint: the movie's poster is pictured above. Second hint: there is more than one correct answer.

"Firefox," adapted from Craig Thomas' '77 novel and directed by Clint Eastwood in '82, is the name of an experimental military airplane that not only is fast, but it is capable of eluding radar. Additionally, the pilot wears a helmet that reads his thoughts and automatically does the assigned task. "Blue Thunder," directed by John Badham in '83, is an experimental police helicopter that is equipped to perform surveilance, both by sound and sight. If the pilot is wearing the helmet and turns his head, the weapons turn in the same direction.

Michael Gant (Clint Eastwood) in "Firefox" and Frank Murphy (Roy Scheider, one of my favorite actors) in "Blue Thunder" were both exceptional pilots (Murphy was able to fly a loop with a helicopter, which is supposed to be impossible, but of course Murphy did it at the end). Both, as mentioned above, dealt with trauma from being in the Vietnam War. Gant's job was to steal the Firefox from the governmental baddies; Murphy stole the Blue Thunder after learning the evil plans of the governmental baddies.

And here's where these two super-pilots take their sophisticated machines in two opposit directions. Or to put it a different way, what is the role of OUR government? "Firefox" is a cold-war era espionage adventure where our government (the good guys) sent Gant to Russia to steal the Firefox before the Russians could use it. "Blue Thunder" is described as neo-noir, where our government (the bad guys) were planning on using the Blue Thunder for surveilance and quelling domestic unrest, so Murphy steals it and destroys it after an exciting but somewhat implausible climatic dogfight. 

The difference affected the movies. "Firefox" received a PG rating in the pre PG-13 era, and possibly could have kept that rating after PG-13 came into being. "Blue Thunder" got an R, and like most movies, could have been a better PG (or PG-13) movie than with the R. The enemy in "Blue Thunder" was an officer in the military Murphy had dealt with. In Firefox, the antagonists were the Russian military and government, where the two sides treated each other with respect and without personal animosity. For example, during the final dogfight between Gant and an equal Russian pilot, Gant lost control of the plane due to his PTSD, the Russian gave him a thumbs up when he was able to regain control. You wouldn't be surprised for Eastwood to direct a pro-US movie. Likewise, it wasn't a surprise for Badham to have an anti-war movie - in addition to "Blue Thunder," '83 saw the release of "Wargames," also directed by Badham and also wary of our government.

From here, I'm making comments of the movies more from an artistic perspective than my previous look at worldview. 

As I mentioned before, "Firefox" was based on a novel. Which was better? Good question. The movie had three divisions: 1) Gant's recruitment and training, 2) Gant arriving in Russia and getting to the plane, and 3) flying the plane out of Russia. In the book, the first section was a brief prologue, with the ten chapters equally dealing with the other parts. In this, I think the book was stronger - the first section was a little slow for an adventure. However, two of Gant's allies in getting to the plane died after seeing they did their job; the book had those two die not knowing if they succeeded.

Let me move to the characters of the movies. "Blue Thunder"  was my fifth Roy Scheider movie, including "The French Connection" and "Jaws", and I consider myself a fan. I only saw three Eastwood movies before "Firefox," and I didn't enjoy them as much as the Scheider films. I liked their portrayals. Both movies also introduced me to actors I've grown to like: Freddie Jones as Gant's recruiter (I loved seeing his joy when Gant succeeded in stealing the plane) and Daniel Stern (Marv in "Home Alone) as Murphy's observer and partner. 

As far as story-telling, I will admit "Blue Thunder" had a more interesting start, though both movies smoothly moved into the main plot. After that, I think "Firefox" was better. Part of it was being loyal to the book. However, it also was more realistic in parts than "Blue Thunder." They did end off with the character heading into the horizon (Gant flying the plane into friendly airspace, Murphy walking beside the train track with the demolished Blue Thunder in smoke behind him). 

Which did I enjoy more? Let me answer it this way. I watched "Firefox" four times - twice in its theatrical run, once on TV, and a few years ago on DVD. I might watch it again. I've never thought of watching "Blue Thunder" a second time.

'25 SUMMER READING LIST, #25 - "TURN NEITHER TO THE RIGHT NOR TO THE LEFT" BY ERIC SCHANSBERG

Happy Independence Day. I originally was going to delay the finale of this series tomorrow (July 5th) so I could have a blog focused on the holiday. However, when I started on what was originally intended to be the July 2nd entry - "Turn Neither to the Righ Nor to the Left: A Thinking Christian's Guide to Politics and Public Policy" by D. Eric Schansberg - I realized this would be appropriate today.

Schansberg starts by introducing Government's role in the Bible and pursuing Godly goals with Godly methods. He follows up with why Christians shouldn't legislate righteousness, but rather legislate justice. One issue with legislating justice is when it is redistributing to the non-poor.

But what about abortion? Schansberg closes with that issue, pointing out it's a legislating justice issue that sounds like a legislating righteousness issue. My favorite story was when he mentioned a woman who set up a tent near an abortion clinic giving information on adoption, including lists of those who are wanting to adopt.
 

BOOK REVIEW - "TOXIC EMPATHY: HOW THE PROGRESSIVES EXPLOIT CHRISTIAN COMPASSION" BY ALLIE BETH STUCKEY

Is empathy something that is always beneficial? Or can it become an enabler for those who desire tolerance... for themselves, not for those who disagree? Is it possible that those to the left politically are using Christians' desire to care for others to convince us that what God considers evil isn't really evil?

"Toxic Empathy: How the Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion" is the second book by Allie Beth Stuckey, who previously wrote "You're Not Enough (And That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self Love." Both are books that look at lies exalted in modern culture.

The artist in me loves the structure of these books. They both have a pastel colored cover with black and white lettering (the font style is different). Each book deals with five lies that fit the theme of the respective book. 

"Toxic Empathy" deals with these five mantras:

1. "Abortion is healthcare,"
2. "Trans Women are Women,"
3. "Love is Love,"
4. "No Human is Illegal," and 
5. "Social Justice is Justice."

Each chapter starts out with a story that appears to defend the chapter's title. Stuckey then looks more closely and analyzes the world view and what Biblical truth says on the subject. 

I recommend this book. It was well put together and short enough to be a comfortable read.

 

BOOK REVIEW - "KINGDOM POLITICS: GOVERNMENT FROM GOD'S PERSPECTI VE" BY TONY EVANS

 "Now, wait a minute!" some of you may say. "Didn't you post a review of this book less than a month ago?" 

No. Just over three weeks ago, I posted a book review on "Kingdom Politics: Returning God to Government." This post is on "Kingdom Politics: Government from God's Perspective." Let me explore the similarities and differences in this review of the latter.

"Kingdom Politics: Government from God's Perspective" by Dr. Tony Evans is the study book for a six part study based on his book "Kingdom Politics: Returning God to Government." Each of the six weekly studies are designed with an introduction section called "Hitting The Streets," and two Bible studies. Also, the book includes a code so you can log in and view a video for each of the sections.

While there is a lot of overlap, there are differences (beside this one having a dark cover and "Returning God to Government" has a white cover). "Returning God to Government" has 12 chapters divided into a trio of four chapter divisions; "Government from God's Perspective" has 6 lessons, and they don't fit perfectly with the other book.

In this age of political division, one important thing to a lot of people is if this book leans left/Democrat or right/Republican. Evans encourages we instead be "Kingdom Independents," seeking Scripture to see how God views issues. Evans believes it's possible for one person to take that approach and side with Democrats on the matter of justice while another ends up standing with Republicans for the sanctity of life. 

This is supposed to be a six week study. We managed to cram those six weeks into eighteen, spending three weeks in each chapter, going through the "Hitting the Streets" and two studies one week each. But maybe your group might move quicker.

I recommend this study.

BOOK REVIEW - "KINGDOM POLITICS: RETURNING GOD TO GOVERNMENT" BY TONY EVANS

 

Isn't there supposed to be separation of church and state? 

Dr. Tony Evans takes a completely different view. After all, God created the earth, the family, the church... and government. Governments where the participants are using the Bible and Christlikeness as their guide will succeed; those that don't will become oppressive.

Evans starts with the concept of Kingdom Politics (chapters 1-4). Next, he deals with the priorities of Kingdom Politics (chapters 5-8), such as sanctity of life and justice. Then, he focuses on the Citizens of Kingdom Politics. (Chapters 9-12) This includes in recognizing our citizenship is ultimately in heaven, but we're here to make an impact on our society. He also looks at voting, noting that different Christians will have differing priorities, and pointing out our allegiance should not be to the Democrat or Republican or even Libertarian Party but to the ruler of the kings of the earth, viewing ourselves as Kingdom Independents. 

Finally, he has a conclusion where he presents "A Kingdom Strategy  for Community Transformation, which has a three point plan:

1. Assemble: Unified Sacred Gathering
2. Address: Unified Compassionate Voice
3. Act: Unified Social Impact

I found this to be a very thought provoking book. It is motivating me to do more praying before I vote, as well as to encourage me to get involved. I highly recommend this book.

ISIDEWITH.COM 2024 VERSION (OR 2025 OR MAYBE 2028)

 

Me with my friend and '24 candidate for US Senate Andrew Horning at the Compact for Liberty Signing in 2016.

I have been regularly taking the iSideWith.com polls, but this year, I didn't get around to it until... today, two months after the election! But I found the results interesting. Let me share some thoughts that stood out.

1. Top of the list of Presidential Candidates I agree with? President Elect Donald Trump with 92%. VP elect Vance? 93%. Who is on the bottom of the list? VP Harris at a dismal 12%. Her running mate Walz clocked in at 19%.
2. But this list had other parties as well, not playing the horrible 2 party game. Of course, I lean toward Libertarianism, and I agreed with LP candidate Chase Oliver 76% of the time - less than the 85% with '16 candidate Gary Johnson, but better than the 48% with '20 candidate Jo Jorgensen. What's interesting, though, is that the 48% I agree with Jorgensen were the issues most important to me, while I disagreed with Johnson on potential deal breakers. I did hear Oliver interviewed, and I liked him okay, but not enough to vote for.
3. Did I mention that Oliver was in 3rd place of the Presidential candidates I agreed most with? Who then was 2nd place? Robert Kennedy Jr.? No, he was in 4th place with 69%. Second place was... Peter Sonski of the American Solidarity Party with 80%? What's interesting is four years ago, the ASP Presidential candidate wasn't as high, but his 49% edged out LP Jorgensen for 2nd place. Yet when I look at the Party, I agree with the ASP a mournful 27%! Trying to figure that one out. (The LP agreed with me 65% as did the big government never-heard-of-before No Labels party; the Constitution Party was a close 2nd to the GOP, 89% and 91% respectively.
4. At the bottom, they asked about potential candidates for '28. I voted for the person I was rooting for in '24: Nikki Haley. The next and final question was "Why didn't I say I'd vote for Wes Moore?" Who? First time I heard of him! So where did he fare? Not as well as Nikki, who scored 87%, behind Republicans Vance (94%), Dan Crenshaw (93%), Megyn Kelly (90%) and Libertarians Justin Amash (89%) and Spike Cohen (88%). No, Wes scored with a measly 24%, though that's actually a high number... compared to his fellow Democrats. So why did they think I'd want to vote for him? (And no, there were other Democrats scoring higher.)
5. Finally, my good friend Andrew Horning was on the list for US Senator, but they didn't have any info, so I'm not sure - would I agree 100% with him? 0%? Or somewhere in between? (I have a hunch I know the answer.)

Okay, I found that fun. Do you have any comments on what I shared? Any advice? Maybe move from being a LP fan to the Constitution Party or the American Solidarity Party?

BOOK REVIEW - "SHEPHERDS FOR SALE: HOW EVANGELICAL LEADERS TRADED THE TRUTH FOR A LEFTIST AGENDA" BY MEGAN BASHAM

 

What is an Evangelical? Is there a political view that qualifies the title Evangelical? Are pastors and Christian leaders that lean left turning from the Gospel, or do they disagree on which party's policies best represent the teachings of Christ?

"Shepherds For Sale: How Evangelical Leaders Traded The Truth For A Leftist Agenda" by Megan Basham has the premise that Christian leaders are trying to appeal to the world by moving to the left, embracing concepts like climate change, Critical Race Theory, #MeToo, etc.

I learned about this book via one of my favorite podcasts:  "Unshaken Faith" with Alisa Childers and Natasha Crain. I'll admit - I was disappointed by this book.

One thing is "the truth" in the title refers to political conservatism. No, for the Christian, the truth refers to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the inspiration, infallibility, inerrancy, and sufficiency of Scripture, and salvation by grace rather than works. There is no evidence that the leaders criticized in this book have turned from the faith.

Likewise, there's an assumption that the reason some may not support Trump or are not dogmatic on certain political views is a lack of faith rather than a disagreement on the best way to live out said faith. I'll confess, in 2016 I did not trust Trump and voted Libertarian.

Finally, what is an Evangelical? For the past 40 years, I considered it the more liberal side of Biblical Christianity, trying to reach the world for Christ, while Fundamentalism is more focused on being strict Biblicists. Now, it's used to hint the politics, though on that subject - like with many others - there is variation among Evangelical concerns. So Basham's concerns are items that neither surprise nor concern me. As stated, there is no indication of turning from the Gospel.

There is error in the church that needs correcting. However, some do that correcting in a way that sows discord, that leaves one with a bad taste in their mouth. I felt that way after reading this book. It's rare I do not recommend a book I've read, but this is one of the exceptions. The topic is important, but I think this book did more hurting and dividing than solving the problem.

BOOK(LET) REVIEW - "GODLY CITIZENS UNDER GODLESS KINGS" BY JOHN MACARTHUR

 

Election day is just a week away, and we get to choose between a candidate some consider evil and an opponent belonging to a party that promotes what many (myself included) consider evil. How are we to live in days of an ungodly government?

If the lines for voting are long, "Godly Citizens Under Godless Kings" by Rev. John MacArthur might be good and appropriate reading, especially since it is only 34 pages long. But if you've already voted early, this still is an insightful and thought provoking book.

MacArthur starts off in Romans 13 stating what the role of government is, and then deals with Satan's influence on the state. He points out, "No matter where persecution breaks out, the arch-persecutor of the church is always going to be the government. We know this because the government alone can fine, jail, and even execute people with impunity." He speaks about civil disobedience in Scripture and today, and closes with a guideline on "How to live under a pagan government."

I have three comments I'd like to add in closing.

1. While I am convinced that neither the Democrat, the Republican, or the Libertarian Party are committed to a Biblical leadership, I do think MacArthur is overreaching when he says the government will always be part of the persecution - some of today's persecution is from other sources like the Columbian drug lords and the terrorist group Boka Haran. This is technical - I can see the U.S. government persecuting Christians.
2. MacArthur mentions being fined during the COVID lockdowns by the California government. He doesn't mention the church's standing firm and eventually getting the fines erased. I think that should have been included, even if this was a pamphlet.
3. I read this shortly after listing to the Reformed Libertarian podcast, where both hosts are anarchist (meaning they don't believe we need government). I've read some that say Christians are obligated to stand against ungodly nations to the point of taking up arms, as in the Revolutionary War. MacArthur doesn't deal with the Revolution, but he definitely believes government is necessary and placed by God. Am I sure which side I take on that issue?

SATURDAY CONTROVERSIES - ARE FAITH AND POLITICS OIL AND WATER OR CHOCOLATE AND PEANUT BUTTER? (PART 7)

Christians United Church, Indianapolis, IN

First, I know. This is being posted on Monday. Sorry I didn't get it done on Saturday, but better late than never! But if you notice I actually posted Monday's blog on Saturday (yesterday) and Saturday's on Monday. Of course, I usually don't have a Monday blog. 

Allow me to start with a list of items of debate between Christians involving politics.

• Should Christians vote? Some refuse to vote, some think not voting's a sin.
• Is it allowable for Christians to either leave one spot on the ballot blank or to vote for a "third party?" Some would claim that doing so is really a vote for your least favorite major party candidate; others would counter that  voting for the lesser of two evils is really voting for evil and that it's better to vote for a good candidate that has no chance of winning or to not vote than voting for a really bad candidate who has a better chance of beating a really, really bad candidate.
• What are Christians obligated to do or not do under Romans 13:1-7? Should Christians stand up against a tyrannical government and fight or should we be respectful and disobey only if what's commanded is directly disobeying God?
• If we have a choice between a morally sound candidate whose party has views that are opposed to their faith and a scoundrel who has better policy views, who should you vote for?
• Does the fact we're in a representative government mean we don't really need to honor Presidents and Congressmen? Or is the better view that we should show respect regardless of office or party?

No, I'm not giving answers to these questions. In fact, I rephrased one of these questions because I was letting my bias show (no, I won't tell which one). I'm just pointing out where there are disagreements between Christians, most of which have no verbatim Biblical commands. But instead, I'll give some challenges.

1. Between now and election day, pray for God's will to be done in the election. No, don't pray for your choice. Pray that God's choice prevails.
2. Commit to pray for the people who get elected, that God guides them and that they govern well. Yes, committing to this BEFORE the election means you might be praying for a candidate you either despise or fear. But when the apostles taught people to obey their governing authority, they were talking about Nero, and there's no absolute proof that either candidate is THAT bad! 
3. Realize - in spite of the hateful, ungodly campaign ads we get ad nausea... I mean nauseum - that ALL candidates are for justice, education, public safety, the economy, the environment, etc. The opposing candidate is NOT against these things; they just have a different opinion on how to do it. Thus, unless you're strong at loving your enemies, don't treat the opposing party candidates as enemies. 
4. Also remember - no party is righteous. Both try to appeal to Christians because ... well, they want our vote. When they get elected, they'll probably do what the party wants, and each party has ways their opposed to God's way. We won't get all the problems solved until the King of Kings returns and sets up His Kingdom.

 

BOOK REVIEW - RELIGHTING THE TORCH BY ANDREW HORNING

 

Is this country the Constitutional Republic the Founding Fathers gave us? If not, is that an improvement, or is it endangering the freedoms the Constitution was meant to preserve?

In "Relighting The Torch," Andrew Horning deals with these issues. He points out how, almost while the ink on the Constitution was still wet, we moved toward a centralized government. He then includes an annotated Declaration of Independence and Constitution with all the Amendments, concluding with ways to get our country back on track.

I found this book informative, which did not surprise me the least. Horning has run for office as both a Libertarian and a Republican. During one debate, one blogger commented that he would make an excellent teacher on the Constitution and government. I fully agree.

There are few books I can objectively say that I think everyone should read. This is a good example. I wish our leaders would read this and try to get this country back in shape. 

Thank you, Andrew Horning, for writing this book.

SIMON THE ZEALOT - BIBLICAL PEOPLE I'M CURIOUS ABOUT (PART 5 OF 6)

St. Simon by Peter Paul Rubens from his Twelve Apostles series at the Museo del Prado, Madrid, c. 1611

It should be no surprise that the majority of these obscure people in Scripture were in the Old Testament. But there are a pair from the New Testament we're not as aware of. We'll look at one this week and conclude this series with the other.

There were two Simons among the 12 apostles. Of course, one is better known as Peter. The other is called Simon the Cananite in Matthew 10:2-4 and Mark 3:16-19, and as Simon the Zealot Luke 6:14-16 and Acts 1:13. And I've just mentioned every passage where he's mentioned by name in Scripture.

If you notice, the 12 are divided into three groups; their names might be in a different order, but it's the same three groups. The first started with Peter and included Andrew and the Zebedee boys. The next group featured Matthew, Thomas, Phillip, and Bartholomew. Finally, we find Simon with James the Son of Alpheus, Lebbaeus (Matt.) aka Thaddeus (Mark) aka Judas the son of James (Luke and Acts; John calls him "Judas not Iscariot" and the voice text on our phone put it "Judas not as scary at"), and you know who (missing, obviously, in Acts). James and the other Judas, like Simon, have nothing written about them in Scripture other than their names and calling.

But Simon has a designation that arouses my curiosity - particularly "The Zealot." Historians are aware there was a violent Zionist group by that name. But was he a zealot? The miniseries "Jesus Of Nazareth" had him leave the Zealots to follow Christ. The little I've seen of "The Chosen" with Simon implies he still had that mindset. Others say that he never was a Zealot. 

What about the other designation - "the Cananite?" Note the writing - it's not saying "Canaanite." Some believe he was from Cana, and possibly was the groom at a certain wedding that took place there. I've heard someone else, however, say that "Cananite" is an Aramaic word meaning ... you guessed it. "Zealot."

Having interest in politics, I'd love to get to know Simon when we get to heaven. 
 

THOUGHTS ABOUT THE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES/CAUCUSES

Declaration of Independence by John Trumbull

Ready for one of those blogs where I give a few thoughts? Well, this will be one of those!

POINT 1 - I don't know how much of a real contention this was, but I read one (only one) article saying that Biden wanted the first Democratic primary to be South Carolina instead of the long standing tradition of it being New Hampshire. The reason? They wanted to give a state with more diversity like SC to start the campaign as opposed to one with less diversity like NH. 

As I said, I only saw one article on it, and nothing on television or elsewhere, so it may not have been as contentious as the article made it. Possibly, the Democrats for a change saw it as I did. The fact is that if a person believes in diversity, they don't need to create diversity for people to know it. 

POINT 2 - One thing that has been true and still is - sometimes I strongly disagree with something Trump says or does but then realize Trump is more reasonable than I thought. Latest example deals with his absence from the debates, especially when I heard him say that he would be glad to do the debates when it's down to him and one challenger.

After all, what will entering the debates do to help Trump? He's leading the polls. He has a target on his back. And his views are known. He has no need to take on a half-a-dozen contenders. But he is willing when it's one on one. I might prefer him being at the debates, but I can see his point.

POINT 3 - We have not had a rematch in consecutive elections in over a century, since Cleveland and Benjamin Harrison faced each other in 1888 and 1892 with the incumbent losing both times, and then McKinley defeating William Jennings Bryan in 1896 and 1900. I, unfortunately, see all indications that unless something drastic happens we'll have Trump vs. Biden II in November. I hope not. I'm rooting for Haley on the Republican side and will have a heart attack if the Dems ever put up someone I can vote for. 

Today is the New Hampshire Primary. Last week, Trump trumped the Iowa Caucus. Yes, there's Super Tuesday coming up, but unless we have a surprise today, it will be a uphill battle for anybody other than the former President. True, Biden got the nomination four years ago while not being in the race for the early contests, but there's nobody like that on the Democrat side.

Well, maybe the Libertarians can field a candidate that like Johnson looks credible for the office and like Jorgenson is a person I am rooting for.

 

DON'T TRUST IN PRINCES: POST '23 ELECTION BLUES AND THE ANSWER

Christians United Church, Indianapolis, IN

"Don't trust in princes or in a son of man, in whom there is no help." Psalm 146:3 

Is this the worst case of post election blues I've ever had? Probably others were at least as bad, but for mayor/city council elections, this takes the cake. Let me make several points why.

First, the scorecard. There were eight offices I voted for: Indy mayor and City Council, and Lawrence mayor, town clerk, district councillor and three at large councillors. The Indy Councilor was the only one I didn't vote for the loser, and that's because that candidate was unopposed.

Second, the challenger for Indy mayor focused on the incumbent's record, specifically an annually increasing murder rate, loss in numbers of police force, and telling the police to stand down during the George Floyd riots. The Incumbent's party responded with the charges that the Challenger was a Trump supporter, had an extreme view on abortion, and had an A+ rating from the NRA. Any of those mayor issues? Even if they were, those views are similar to mine; are they saying I'm a deplorable because I lean Republican? That you need to be a liberal lemming to be worthy of being elected?

In Lawrence township, the Republican mayor candidate and his party's town clerk and council candidates visited my apartment complex. I had great conversations with a couple of the gentlemen. I didn't have great conversations with their Democrat counterparts because they never came. :'( Likewise, the GOP candidate had a billboard on a main road and I regularly drove by three campaign signs for him. Only one for the Democrat. Yet the Democrat won 53-47%. (The Democrat Indy mayor did better, with 60%-40%, normal result for the U.S. Congressional seat in the same area.) Is that saying that I'm not worth the Democrats trying to earn my vote? Worse yet, is it saying that a vote for a Republican is meaningless, the same claim they make when I vote Libertarian?

I'm also discouraged with voter turnout. We are ready to vote for President, where we represent 0.000001% of the eligible voters, but we don't have time when our vote may actually have an effect on the election. When the GOP showed up at our apartment with six candidates, it looked like those who came to talk to them were two residents per candidate. 😱

Last week (Nov. 5, '23), Pastor Jeremy Couture at Northside Baptist Church preached on James 4:11-17, and made the point that "Magnifying other people's problems violates the second greatest commandment." He said it includes "slander, gossip, and exagerated accusations (emphasis mine). Couture gave an example of lighting candles when the power is out, and added that we often try to make our light brighter by dimming the light of those around us. Doesn't this sound like political ads? What if we started treated our opponents with respect?

But the bottom line is I SHOULD NOT GET POST-ELECTION BLUES! The Democrats aren't the answer to our problem. The Republicans aren't the answer to our problems. No, not even the Libertarian Party is the solution. As the billboard I posted above reads, we should trust only in the Lamb, in Jesus Christ.

Things may not be as bad as I think, or they may be a lot worst. But we need to remember that the authorities  that exist are appointed by God (Romans 13:1), and the fact we're in a democracy does not change that fact. Also, we're commanded to honor all men and the king, and to give supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving for all men, including kings and those in authority over us (1 Peter 2:17; 1 Timothy 2:1-2).

Post Election Blues are a symptom either of fear or idolatry in our party. Neither is what God has called us to. He did call us to pray, and I pray regularly for those in authority for me, from President to town council, Democrat or Republican.

SUNDAY PSALMS PART 18 OF 48 - PSALM 85:13

 

Maumee Bay State Park, Oregon, OH

"Righteousness will go before Him,
        And shall make His footsteps our pathway."
                     Psalm 85:13, New King James Version

Psalm 85, like a lot of other Psalms is a blessing. But I want to focus on the final verse. 

Is righteousness making God's footsteps our pathway? Or are we prone to go to the right or the left?

There's an excellent book Turn Neither To The Right Nor To The Left by Eric Schansberg, focusing on politics. But we must not assume "right" and "left" deal solely with politics.

Going to far to the right can refer to a legalistic mindset. It also can refer to a reluctance to change but maintain the status quo. There's a book titled The Seven Last Words of the Church: "We've Never Done It This Way Before." (I once say a cartoon where there was a banner reading "Week Two of The Church Plant," and one person said, "We didn't do it this way last week.")

While the right side has the danger of not changing things that are at the minimum don't hurt being changed and at the maximum things that really should be changed, the left side is the opposite, changing things that should be left alone. (Pun unintentional). 

Some of the changes are to be seen as "being compassionate," accepting cultural norms instead of the truth of God's Word. Some of the changes are to be seen as "being intellectual," assuming scientific theory is more valid than Biblical fact. And sometimes it is us just being selfish, defending things we like and not wanting to be judged (sometimes that judgment is what Jesus is condemning in Matthew 7:1, sometimes it is an attempt to turn a sinner from the error of his way in James 5:19-20.

Are we asking God to make His footsteps our pathway?

POST PRIMARY '23 THOUGHTS

Christians United Church, Indianapolis.

 

 After looking at the ballot for Tuesday's Republican primary, Becky asked if I wanted to run for City Council. 😱

Let me give a little background, and then I'll share some thoughts. 

We are in the city of Lawrence (Indiana), which is in Marion County; Marion County and Indianapolis are one in the same. Thus, I live in two different cities, represented by two mayors and five councilers (Indianapolis 10th district, Lawrence's 3rd, and three at-large Lawrence representatives. At the moment, all except the Lawrence mayor are Democrats.

I'm typing this on the day of the primary election. There were five candidates for Indianapolis Mayor on the Democrat side (including the incumbent, Joe Hogsett, running for his 3rd term) and four Republicans. For Lawrence Mayor there was one Republican and two Democrats (the Republican candidate probably finished due to term limits?). 

The primaries are over and I will predict that in the Council races, the Dems will maintain their majority in both Indy and Lawrence. Why? Out of the 25 seats in Indianapolis, 12 have no Republican candidate. In Lawrence, same is true for half of the half dozen districts; true, there's three at large seats which are contested, but if the Dems win either those three seats or two of the contested seats, they've got the majority.

Okay, that's enough for the background. My thoughts?

• Have the Republicans given up on Indianapolis (and Lawrence)? Is it better to save money and work on races that aren't expected to be won, or to fight on the ballot even when the odds are against them?
• Related. Is the thought that partisan control of a city does not make a difference as much as it does with state and federal government? Thus, is the GOP saving up for the seemingly more important races?
• If the Libertarians got aggressive and ran for every seat the Republicans are ignoring, would the voters there realize that there is an alternative to the Democrats and encourage them? Or do Republicans (and Democrats) think it's better to let the "bad guys" have control than to let the revolutionaries (e.g. third parties) provide some needed choices other than the two bullies?
• Are we heading to a point where a single party has control? And is there anyway that this is good for freedom? 
• We have open primaries where you can vote in one party's primary, even if you are probably voting for the other party in the November elections. Is that good, or should the selection of the November candidates be done by those registered in a certain party?
  
• The Republican running for Indy mayor spent 1 mil of his own money to get the nomination. With the money involved, is running for office any different than gambling? And does that make money spent in campaigns money that could be used more effectively elsewhere? 
• By the way, except in the case mentioned in the above paragraph, who pays for the Bully... I mean two major Parties' primaries? Yep, us taxpayers. Should we put an end to that?
  
• Let's move from the unimportant to matters of faith. As Christians, do we either a) ignore battles we should be fighting (should the Republicans and Libertarians make sure no seat is unchallenged) or b) spending time and money for earthly things (even in the church) instead of heavenly things (should the Republicans not challenging a seat being wise)?

Yes, of course I'd love to hear your thoughts on these questions. And should I run for office? (Honestly, I think Becky would be a better candidate than me.)

SUNDAY PSALMS PART 15 OF 48 - PSALM 62

 

Southeastway Park, Indianapolis, IN

1     Truly my soul silently waits for God;
      From Him comes my salvation.
2   He only is my rock and my salvation;
     He is my defense; I shall not be greatly moved.
3  How long will you attack a man?
     You shall be slain, all of you,
     Like a leaning wall and a tottering fence.
4  They only consult to cast him down from his high position;
     They delight in lies;
     They bless with their mouth,
     But they curse inwardly.
                                            Selah

5   My soul, wait silently for God alone,
     For my expectation is from Him.
6  He only is my rock and my salvation;
     He is my defense; I shall not be moved.
7   In God is my salvation and my glory;
     The rock of my strength,
     And my refuge, is in God.
8   Trust in Him at all times, you people;
     Pour out your heart before Him;
     God is a refuge for us.
                                              Selah

9  Surely men of low degree are a vapor,
    Men of high degree are a lie;
    If they are weighed on the scales,
    They are altogether lighter than vapor.
10 Do not trust in oppression,
     Nor vainly hope in robbery;
     If riches increase,
     Do not set your heart on them.
11   God has spoken once,
     Twice I have heard this:
     That power belongs to God.
12  Also to You, O Lord, belongs mercy;
     For You render to each one according to his work.
                                    Psalm 62:1-12, New King James Version

 

Some people think that politics and faith should be kept separate. Of course, we're aware of those who think anything dealing with religion (especially Christianity) has no place in politics, and probably not in the public square. There are Christians as well that basically see themselves as being in the Kingdom of God and politics being the Kingdom of the Devil and don't want to defile themselves with the latter.

However, besides seeing the obvious focus on trusting in God as our Rock, our Defense, our Salvation, and the Righteous and Merciful Judge who will give to each according to their work, I also see things that make me think of American politics.

For example, look at verses 3-4. What comes to mind when I read this? The impeachments of Clinton and Trump. In both cases, the opposition party were on the lookout for any reason to try to remove the President.

I also think of politics when I get to verse 10. Sometimes, the government itself is oppressive. Other times, people tolerate the oppression of those they disagree with. And robbery? While the Libertarian thought of "Taxation Is Theft" might be exaggerated, it's not off-base, and some favor the rich - meaning those who are better-off than they are - to pay "their fair share." But let's not forget the last part of the verse. There are people who trust in their riches.  

The reality is we should put our trust and hope in God. We should not trust in ourselves or in Government or anything else.

BOOK REVIEW - RANKING THE VICE PRESIDENTS: TRUE TALES AND TRIVIA, FROM JOHN ADAMS TO JOE BIDEN BY IAN RANDAL STROCK

 What kind of people have been our Vice-Presidents? Is there a scale on who was the most effective? Or does that apply to the job description of Vice President?

I have read books dealing with ranking the Presidents, most notably Where They Stand: The American Presidents in the Eyes of Voters and Historians by Robert W. Merry and Recarvomg Rushmore: Ranking the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty by Ivan Eland. Those two books have different treks on ranking the White House residents, but the question is: How about the Vice-Presidents? Ranking the Vice Presidents: True Tales and Trivia, From John Adams to Joe Biden by Ian Randal Strock sounds like the book I'd be interested in.

One curiosity is what standards would the Vice President be ranked on? After all, historically the role of the Vice President was to preside over the Sentate, only voting to break a tie, and to stay alive in case the President doesn't. It doesn't sound like the occupation where you can rank the best to the worst, does it?

This book doesn't even try. Rather, this book appears to have the goal to help you get to know the Vice Presidents better. It breaks down the Vice President in various categories such as their age, height, how long they survived their wives (or vice versa), and which ones certified the votes that would either put them into the White House or terminate their position. 

This book also goes further than its title indicates. It also has lists of cabinets, including how many former cabinet members became president. The book also closes with various acts dealing with the Vice Presidency from the Constitution to the 25th Amendment.

While not what I expected, this book is interesting and giving you information you wouldn't have otherwise.

I will warn that the editing is not perfect. When writing about Vice Presidents who served under more than one President the author accidentally misidentified James Madison as James Monroe, and when dealing with facial hair on Presidents and Vice-Presidents, he forgot that Taft was the last whiskered President, not Teddy Roosevelt. Still, this is a unique book.

BOOK REVIEW - CAESAR AND THE CHURCH: A BIBLICAL STUDY OF GOVERNMENT AND CHURCH BY ANTHONY FORSYTH

Is obeying whatever the Government says without sinning God's ideal for the Christian life? Does the Government have authority in all they claim to have authority in? Do we have the right to disobey "Caesar" if "Caesar" is evil? 

Anthony Forsyth has written a brief, powerful, and Biblical book dealing with the Christian's responsibility to political authority... or any other human authority.

Forsyth points out that God is the source of all authority, and every human authority is delegated from God with limits on who has that authority, the sphere of that authority, and the extent of that authority. According to Forsyth, the government does not have authority over the church and the church giving "Caesar" some of that authority not delegated to him could be a form of idolatry.

As stated, this book is brief. Usually, I read one chapter of a non-fiction book in one sitting; I can read three chapters of this book in the time it takes to read one chapter of other books. It is easy to follow as well. Most importantly, it faithfully interprets Scripture. 

One other strength - Forsyth writes as a pastor, not as a politician. There is no indication in this book whether the author identifies as conservative, liberal, or libertarian. 

I highly recommend this book. (I also love the cover.)

INTERVIEW WITH POLITICAL ACTIVIST/FOUNDER OF PRO LIFE LIBERTARIAN CAUCUS RUSSELL BROOKSBANK

 

I met Russell Brooksbank (and several other Libertarian 2016 Congressional Candidates) at the Signing of the Compact for Liberty. While I don't think our paths have physically crossed since, I've kept up with him via the internet. 

JR: Welcome to my blog, Russell. I’ll start with a typical question – could you tell us how you became a Christian and how you became a Libertarian? (Okay, the second part is only typical when I’m interviewing a Libertarian.)

RB: The short answer to both of those questions is, “I was born that way.” I grew up in a Christian home. My parents made sure that I knew God. I was baptized as an infant in the Roman Catholic church my dad grew up in. I remember attending the Bible School that the neighborhood Baptist Church put on in the Summer. I grew up, and was confirmed, in the Lutheran Church. I was an acolyte, a choir member, and later served on the church council overseeing the few youths we had. I was baptized again as a young man in a park by full immersion in a metal trough while at a Bible study group I was involved with. I now attend a non-denominational Christian church. I can’t point to one particular time where I can say, “That’s when I became a Christian.” I can, however, point to many times when I have fallen and then subsequently rededicated my life to Christ. Isn’t it great that we have a God who is willing to pick us up, dust us off, and let us try again? 

I’ve also always been a libertarian. I just didn’t know it. I knew there was something inherently wrong with violating people’s rights. My parents did good raising me to adhere to the Golden Rule. My dad instilled a love of country and service to others. I was raised to stand up for people and for what I believed in. I knew what was right. I knew tyranny when I saw it. I grew up thinking that the Republican Party stood for the things I believed in, like limited government. I was so wrong. 

I joke that I was diagnosed libertarian, but it really is the truth. I was going through a rather difficult time and sought out counselling to help me navigate the rough weather of life. It helped me immensely by the way. It was during a session where we were talking about me finding some friends outside of work that she said, “I believe you are a libertarian. There’s a group that meets at Kingfish every second Tuesday of the month. Your homework is to go to one of their meetups and make some friends.” Well, the rest, as they say, is history. I found my tribe at that meetup. Finally, a group of people that I could relate to. I’ve been a Libertarian ever since and haven’t looked back. 

JR: I met you when you were running for the 9th Congressional District for the US House in ‘16. What was it like with that campaign? Did the Presidential Campaign of that year (Trump vs. Clinton for those who aren’t familiar with the distant past) have any impact on your campaign? Any experiences and/or lessons-for-everyday-life that you’d like to share? 

RB: I had an awesome time running for Congress. I really enjoyed going around the district to various events. From what you know of me, you would not guess that I’m a very introverted person. I get bad stage fright. Putting myself out there, making speeches, and doing interviews was frightening, but exhilarating. It really helped me get over my fears. I ran my campaign with blinders on. What I mean by that was I did not care what anyone else was doing. I was there to give people a choice. I was going to talk about what I would do, not about my opponents. I was there to educate, inspire, and build bridges, not tear down my opponents. Because, at the end of it all, we are all members of the community and have to find a way to coexist. 

I’m sure the Presidential campaign had some impact. We had two very polarizing candidates running. People were hungry for something different. They looked for alternatives. That probably helped boost my numbers a bit. I’m proud of what I was able to accomplish. I received over 17,000 votes while spending only $400 on a congressional campaign. There isn’t a major party candidate who can touch that vote per dollar ratio, LOL. 

My big life lesson takeaway from this is: Don’t be afraid! I saw a void in leadership and put myself out there. If you can do something and you don’t then can you really complain? I didn’t win, but I tried. I can at least tell my grandkids that I stepped into the arena. I mean, there has been an Indiana representative in Congress since the 14th Congress. That means there has been only 112 elections. My name will be included in history as being on the ballot for one of them. How cool is that? Not many people get to say that.  

JR: I’ll ask the question you’re probably wanting me to ask: What could you tell us about the Libertarian Pro-Life Caucus? How and when did it start? What does the Caucus do? Is it more of a bridge between the pro-life movement and the LP, or is it more independent of the other movements? 

RB: The Pro Life Libertarian Caucus started in earnest after the 2020 Libertarian National Convention. It was in the “Beta” stage during the convention. It was an idea that had been brewing in my head for a few years prior to that. I was always asking around and gauging interest for the formation of a caucus. I knew that I was pro-life, and I could see where the pro-life message could, and should, be the message within the Libertarian Party. I wondered if there were people like me within the party. I found that there were. There is a huge number of pro-life people within the party. 

So, I started the formation of the caucus in order to give pro-life libertarians a voice within their party. The process was a long one. We started with an organizational committee. Then after months of hashing out bylaws, platform, statement of principles, we held our online convention that took us months to complete. Our first convention officially adjourned on June 7, 2021. What we do is simply stated within our SoP. “We believe that a pro-life stance is the correct stance for the Libertarian Party. 

We strive to move the culture of the Libertarian Party towards that stance by supporting candidates for party leadership, nominees to public office, changes to our party platform, and education of fellow members.” While we will work with any pro-life organization to rid our world of the abomination that is abortion, we are primarily a group dedicated to change within the Libertarian Party. Part of changing the culture is living our principles out loud. We recently partnered with a person within the party to buy formula for some folks during the shortage. So, I see the PLLC as a vehicle to change hearts and minds within the LP and to help our community. 

JR: There are two big things that have happened this year. Well, actually one big thing and one humongous thing, but I’ll start with the big thing. Did the Libertarian Party get rid of their pro-choice plank? Could you describe what changed? How has it affected the LP? And does it change the function of your caucus? 

RB: Yes! We finally were able to get rid of the plank. For those unfamiliar, the process is simple. Each delegate to the convention gets 5 tokens (votes) that they can use to vote to bring any platform plank up for a straight up or down vote to delete it from our platform. They can put all their votes on one plank, spread them around, or don’t vote for any. If a plank gets votes totaling 20% of the number of delegates, then it comes up for a non-debatable yes or no vote. Then it takes just a simple majority to remove it. The abortion plank had come up for deletion at every convention I could remember. The token votes increased exponentially. We almost had a majority in 2020. This time around we had an overwhelming majority. The plank has been removed. 

What has changed is that now the national platform is silent on the issue. They tried to be neutral with the plank, but it failed. This change allows for members and candidates to truly be free to hold whatever opinion they want. The party has gone from, “What does the Libertarian Party think?” to “What do you, a Libertarian, think?” A much better question, don’t you think? 

I believe this will make for a better, more inclusive, LP. There were a lot of people that have told me that they just could not join or support the LP because of that plank. That obstacle is now gone. The work of the caucus is far from over. It really is just beginning. We have state affiliates and their platforms to deal with. We have hearts and minds throughout the party to win. We have candidates to support. We have programs to support. There is a lot of work to do. We are growing by leaps and bounds. I’m very excited for the future of the caucus. 

JR: Of course, the humongous thing is the overturning of Roe v. Wade. And of course the Democrats aren’t happy and the House passed a couple of bills to regain (and probably expand) their ideology. Personally, I’ve had a concern that if Roe v. Wade was overturned, many pro-lifers will congratulate themselves on a job well done and forget about the crisis pregnancy centers which will be more in need. What do you see as the short and long term effects of the SCOTUS decision? And again, how does this impact the Libertarian Pro-Life Caucus? 

RB: I issued a statement after the SCOTUS decision was handed down. It read: 

“Today was an awesome day! Today, the Supreme Court rightfully sent the issue of abortion back to each state to wrestle with individually. They found that there was never a constitutional right to kill your child because they were inconvenient. 

"Overturning Roe v Wade is an enormous victory, and I don’t want to belittle it, but there is much more work to be done. This is just the beginning. Now the fight moves to each individual state. We can’t rest. We need to push forward. We must end this practice! 

"The opposition has been riled up. They now have a rally cry. We need to be louder. Time to write your state government demanding that they recognize the rights of all people regardless of their stage of development. Time to stand firm. 

"This news also affords us the opportunity to live our principles out loud. Not only do we need to stand firm, but we need to step up. What is something that you could do to help someone in need? What can you do to help those single mothers not feel like they need to consider abortion? What can you do to help the victim of rape not feel worthless and pressured to have an abortion? What can you do to make the lives of children in foster care better? Figure out what you can do, then go do it! 

"This decision will not stop abortion in this country, but love, compassion, and understanding can. Let’s be the light. I’m going to go love someone who is hurting today. Will you join me?” 

The Pro Life Libertarian Caucus will continue to promote the Libertarian values of supporting the rights of all people regardless of location and station and supporting voluntary action to care for our fellow human beings.  

JR: Thank you for your time. How can we learn more about the caucus? 

RB: Thank you so much for the opportunity. Our website is: https://libertyprolife.org/PLLC/ We also have a Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/ProLifeLC) and a Facebook group (https://www.facebook.com/groups/610649603400706/) And we are on Twitter: https://twitter.com/LPProLifeCaucus.